HARBANS LAL Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed under the provisions of S.115 of the Civil P.C. against the order dt. 29-1-1988 of the trial Court dismissing the application of the petitioners for allowing permission to be impleaded as parties to the suit.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts are that Shri N.C. Kundu sole proprietor of the firm M/s Bharat Rice Mills defendant 1 took some loan from the plaintiff-Bank against a simple mortgage of the land measuring 10 Kanals along with the building/construction existing thereon. The machinery of the Rice Sheller was also hypothecated. Defendant 1 failed to repay the loan which resulted in the filing of the suit by the Bank for the recovery of Rs. 607860-15 Paise by sale of the mortgaged land and hypothecated property. During the pendency of this suit, Harbans Lal, Vipin Kumar and Sohan Lal present petitioners filed an application under the provisions of O.1 R.10 of the Civil P.C. for impleading them as party, contending that Shri N.C. Kundu, sole proprietor of the defendant-firm had agreed to transfer the right, title and interest in the above-referring concern to them after they had discharged the liability existing on the said concern in favour of the Central Bank of India, i.e. the plaintiff. This application was resisted by the plaintiff-Bank as well as by defendant 1. Defendant 1 also denied the execution or existence of agreement dt. 26th Sept. 1986 executed by him in favour of the applicants. The trial Court dismissed this application of the petitioners by holding that they are neither necessary parties nor their presence is essential for properly and completely adjudicating upon the controversy in issue.

(3.) During the pendency of this petition, the petitioners have also filed Civil Misc. No. 2225/C.II/1988 for placing Annexures-P1 to P7, copies of the alleged agreement etc. on the record, besides requesting through Civil Misc. No. 2227-CII/1988 for permission to place uncertified copies of these documents on the record. Notice of these applications was given to Shri S.C. Nagpal, learned counsel for the plaintiff-Bank. He had rightly not objected to the allowing of these applications as the same simply support the case of the petitioners set up in their application moved under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil P.C. Accordingly, these applications are allowed.