Malay Kumar Basu, J - (1.) .-This Revisional Application is directed against the order dated 19th May, 1997 passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Calcutta in Transferred Application No. 197/95 ( Punjab National Bank v. Rungmook and Ceders Tea Estate & Ors. ) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This application is preferred by the petitioner, named, The Bloom Field Tea Co. Ltd. who was not a party to the case in question before the Tribunal below but filed the impugned application for being added as a party in the said case. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal dismissing that petition under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. has preferred the present revisional application challenging the impugned order as erroneous, illegal and unsustainable on the ground that impleadment of this petitioner, as a party to the said proceeding is necessary. The case of the petitioner may be summarised as follows.
(2.) The petitioner which is a public limited company filed a suit on September 19, 1978 in this Court being suit No. 692 of 1978 against one Geoffrey James Ower Johnston and the respondent No. 2 claiming inter alia a decree for Rs. 16 lakhs and odd. This suit was ultimately decreed by consent of the parties on April 20, 1981 whereunder the said G.J.O. Johnston and the Respondent No. 2 were directed to pay a total sum of Rs. 17,50,000/- in full and final settlement of the petitioner's claims. It was also declared by this consent- decree that subject to pre-existing charges the petitioner decree-holder would have a charge over the Rungmook & Cedars Tea Estate at Darjeeling for petitioner's decretal dues until such time as decretal dues are cleared. But these dues having not been satisfied the petitioner filed an application for execution of the said decree on July 1, 1982. In that execution proceeding this Court by its order dated August 20, 1982 appointed one Mr. T.P. Das as Receiver and directed him to perform certain acts towards realisation of the decretal dues. That execution petition is still pending. This Court granted leave to the Respondent No. 3 to intervene in the said execution proceeding. During the pendency of this execution application. the Respondent No. 3 filed a Mortgage suit against the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in May 1983 before the Asstt. Dist. Judge, Siliguri, claiming a decree for Rs. 1,08, 98,340.40p. and this suit was transferred to this High Court and was numbered as Extraordinary suit No. 12 of 1992. During the pendency of this suit a Division Bench of this Court passed an order dated March 22, 1985 appointing Joint Receivers over the Tea Estate in dispute. The Respondent No. 5 preferred an appeal against that order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which by its order dated May 10, 1985 directed the Respondent No. 3 not to dispossess or take over the management of the estate from the Respondent No. 5 on condition that the Respondent No. 5 would deposit 75% of the net profits for the year 1984-85. Thereafter that Extraordinary Suit No. 12/1992 of this High Court was transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal in view of the provisions of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 which came into force at that time and the suit was renumbered there as T.A. 197 of 1995. In this case the respondent No. 3 claimed the sale of the entire hypothecated and mortgaged properties of the said J.W. Johnson and the Respondent No. 2 (They allegedly created an equitable mortgage in favour of respondent No. 3 purportedly by the deposit of the original Title Deeds of the Rungmook & Cedars Tea Estate on September 21, 1978) being the crops and the Estate of the respondent No. 2. The order of this High Court according to the applicant, in suit No. 692/78 dated 20.9.1978 and 26.9.1978 encumbering the property is bad in law and void ab initio. The respondent No. 3 has not disclosed in its plaint that the Reserve Bank of India granted permission to the said deceased G.J.O. Johnson, a foreign national, to continue to carry on his business activities as the Proprietor of the Rungmook & Cedars Tea Estate subject to the following conditions : (1) The (defendant No.1) will not expand his existing business activities beyond the level reached during the year 31.12.1973, nor he will undertake any new trading or commercial activity without the prior approval of the R.B.I., and (2) he will not borrow any money or accept any deposits in India for carrying on the above activities without prior permission of the R.B.I. The Punjab National Bank having suppressed these material facts has rendered the present suit in question liable to be dismissed and such suppression has necessitated the filing of this petition by this petitioner for being joined in that suit for divulging such important circumstances and help the Court to come to a correct finding in that matter. Since this petitioner is vitally interested a party in the proceedings before the Tribunal, any order which may be passed by that Tribunal will ultimately affect the execution of the decree passed by this Court in the said suit No. 692/1978 filed by the petitioner and hence it is necessary on the part of the petitioner to intervene in the suit in question pending before the Tribunal by being added as a party defendant. In the execution proceeding pending before the High Court the Punjab National Bank has been allowed by virtue of an order of the Hon'ble Court to intervene and that execution proceeding may be taken up for hearing on any day and in order to avoid conflict of decisions the impugned proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal of Transferred Application No. 197/95 in question should be stayed till disposal of the said pending execution proceeding. In these premises the petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal below praying for leave to intervene in the said T.A. No. 197/95 as a party-defendant and also for the stay of proceeding therein till the disposal of the said execution application in the High Court in connection with suit No. 692/78, but the Ld. Tribunal passed an order dated May 19, 1997 rejecting that application of this petitioner on the ground that there had been no connection between the said suit pending in the Tribunal and the suit No. 692/78 or the decree passed therein and if any certificate in that suit be issued, then the debts due to respondent No. 3 would be recoverable by sale of any property belonging to the respondent either mortgaged or not, or by arrest of the respondent and detention in prison. Being aggrieved by this order the petitioner has preferred this revisional application challenging the same as erroneous, illegal and unjustified and hence liable to be set aside.
(3.) Mr. Banerjee, Ld. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is a necessary party, inasmuch as it is for this company to point out the facts which have not been disclosed by the respondent but the disclosure of which is essential to enable the Court to arrive at a correct finding on the issues under consideration. According to Mr. Banerjee if such facts are disclosed, if it is made known to the Court that this petitioner has obtained a decree which is pending execution before the Hon'ble Court, then the decision of the Ld. Tribunal will be totally otherwise and the respondent No. 3 cannot expect a favourable order. Mr. Banerjee further contends that as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court in the said suit No. 692/78 the hypothecation of the Tea Garden in dispute was in respect of the year 1978 alone and the respondent no.3 could not go beyond that and this fact being not disclosed before the Tribunal by that respondent for obvious reasons it is urgently required that the present petitioner should be allowed to intervene in this matter by being joined as a party-defendant and to bring to the knowledge of the Court these vital facts without which the materials that will form the basis of the Tribunal's taking a decision will be incomplete.;