[ad_1]
The only reason for impleading defendant No. 2 is stated
in paragraph 8 of the Plaint, wherein it is stated that the
plaintiff had accommodated credit services to the defendant
No. 1 only on the request and solemn assurance of
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.775-2023_Judgment.doc
KABC170015832023
defendant No. 2 who had introduced defendant No. 1 to the
plaintiff.
31. Merely because defendant No. 2 introduced the
plaintiff to the defendant No. 1 is not a ground for imposing
liability on the defendant No. 2 when the freight forwarding
services is provided only to defendant No. 1 and not to
defendant No. 2. It is noted that, even in the Plaint prayer
column, the relief of recovery of the amount is sought only
from defendant No. 1. Therefore, it follows that no
decree can be passed against defendant No. 2 and
suit is liable to be dismissed against defendant No. 2.
[ad_2]
Source link