R.R.K.TRIVEDI, J. - (1.) This appeal has been preferred from the order dated 11/07/1991, passed by learned. III Additional District Judge, Dehradun, allowing thereby the review application filed by decree-holder, Punjab National Bank. Sri K. L. Grover has accepted notice for decree-holder respondent, Punjab National Bank. We have heard Sri R. K. Jain, learned counsel for appellant and Sri K. L. Grover.
(2.) The appellant has moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. and has prayed that Sri Manjeet Singh and Sri Vijai Pal Singh may also be impleaded as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the appeal, as they were impleaded as defendants in Original Suit No. 740 of 1985. It has been submitted that under an inadvertent mistake they have been left to be impleaded as respondents in the present appeal. We have heard both the parties on this application. As the limitation for filing the present appeal is up to 10/10/1991 as shown in the report of the Stamp Reporter, the aforesaid persons can be impleaded by the respondents without causing any prejudice to the decree-holder respondents. The application is, accordingly, allowed. The memo of appeal shall be accordingly corrected by impleading Manjeet Singh and Vijai Pal Singh as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively.
(3.) The facts, in brief giving rise to the present appeal, are that Manjeet Singh, respondent No. 2 took a loan of Rupees 1,85,000/- on 23/10/1980 from Punjab National Bank for purchasing of Tata Diesal vehicle. The appellant Sunder Singh and respondent No. 3 Vijai Pal Singh stood guarantor for payment of the amount of loan; on strength of their guarantee the aforesaid amount was given by Punjab National Bank. As the amount was not paid, Punjab National Bank filed Original Suit No. 740 of 1985 for, recovery of Rs. 2,38,200.85 p. together with pendente lite and future interest thereon from the defendants. Manjeet Singh, Principal debtor was arrayed as defendant No. 1 whereas Sunder Singh (appellant) and Vijai Pal Singh were, impleaded as defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in the above case. The relief claimed in the above suit is Material for appreciating the controversy between the parties which is being reproduced below : "That a decree for Rs. 2,38,200,85 (Rupees. two lakhs thirty eight thousand two hundred and paise eighty five only) together with pendente lite and future interest thereon at the rate of 4 per cent above the Reserve Bank of India rate subject to a minimum rate of 13 per cent per annum with quarterly rests be passed in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendants jointly and severally. " 3A. The suit was contested by Manjeet Singh alone. The present appellant and Vijai Pal Singh did not file any written statement in spite of service and did not put any contest to the claim of the bank. The suit was decreed on 11/05/1989. While deciding issue No. 2 the trial court recorded a finding that the defendant No. 1 Manjeet Singh has no other property and consequently his request was accepted for payment of the decretal amount on instalments of Rs. 8,000.00 per month. The operative part of the judgment is being quoted below :- "Plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rupees 2,85,200. 85 is decreed with costs together with pendente lite and further and future interest @ 13% per annum with quarterly rest. However, defendant No. 1 is entitled to pay the decretal amount in the monthly instalments of Rs. 8,000.00 each. The first instalment shall become due on 1-6-86, in case of default of payment of any instalment, the entire decretal amount shall become due. The case will be Ex parte against defendant Nos. 2 and 3.";