Decided on October 14,2004



Pratibha Upasani, - (1.) THIS miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellant/Karnataka Bank Ltd./defendant No. 7 being aggrieved by the order dated October 22, 2003, passed by the learned presiding officer of the DRT, Bangalore, in I. A. No. 10 in O. A. No. 479 of 1995. By the impugned order the learned presiding officer rejected the application made by the appellant/Karnataka Bank/defendant No. 7 praying for transposing them as co-plaintiff No. 3 along with co-plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2, Canara Bank and Syndicate Bank in the original application suit filed by them against defendants Nos. 1 to 6 for the purpose of enforcing their claim against the defendants. It was this application which came to be rejected by the learned presiding officer by a reasoned order dated October 22, 2003. Hence the appeal by Karnataka Bank Ltd.
(2.) I have heard Mr. P. R. Krishnan holding for Mr. C. T. Selvam, advocate for the appellant-Karnataka Bank Ltd. and Mr. Murtaza, advocate for respondents Nos. 1 to 6 and 10 to 14, Mr. Krishnamurthy, advocate for respondent No. 8, Canara Bank and Mr. P. Sreenivasulu, advocate for respondent No. 9, Syndicate Bank. I have also gone through the proceedings including the suit proceedings filed by the original two plaintiffs namely, Canara Bank and Syndicate Bank in the court of the Civil Judge at Mysore, being Suit O.S. No. 320 of 1993 against defendants Nos. 1 to 6 and others (which came to be transferred to DRT, Bangalore, subsequently upon the establishment of DRT). Written statement filed by defendant No. 7 as also the written statements filed by other defendants, compromise petition filed by the second applicant (Syndicate Bank) and defendants Nos. 1 to 6, so also the objections filed by the seventh defendant to the compromise petition and the impugned order and, in my view, the learned presiding officer has not committed any error in passing the impugned order. The case of defendant No. 7/present appellant-Karnataka Bank Ltd. is 3 that original defendants Nos. 1 to 6 namely, M/s. Dasprakash Paradise and others were its debtors. This averment is strongly resisted by the borrower defendants. According to the appellant Karnataka Bank, on the mortgaged security for the enforcement of which the suit was filed originally by Canara Bank and Syndicate Bank, the Karnataka Bank has a first charge, that there is a pari passu agreement dated June 25, 1985, that came to be concluded between applicant No. 1-Canara Bank, applicant No. 2-Syndicate Bank and appellant/defendant No. 7, Karnataka Bank Ltd., and another financial institution/defendant No. 8 on the one hand and the debtors on the other. It appears that after the matter lingered in the court for many years, applicants Nos. 1 and 2 on the one hand and the debtors on the other hand arrived at some compromise and the compromise was filed by the parties in the DRT, Bangalore. Thus, there was end of the litigation in sight. But at this juncture, defendant No. 7 objected to the compromise. The said defendant No. 7 namely, Karnataka Bank Ltd., also made an application praying that the said bank be transposed as co-plaintiff in the original application along with the other two plaintiffs who had already filed their original application claiming the amount lent by them to the defendants.
(3.) BOTH the original plaintiff banks and the defendants opposed the said application made by defendant No. 7/Karnataka Bank Ltd.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.