- (1.) The challenge in the present revision petition filed by the applicant UCO Bank is to the order dated 25.09.2012, whereby the application for being impleaded as party in the suit for recovery filed by the respondent No.1 i.e. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Amloh mainly on the ground that the applicant-bank was at liberty to proceed separately through separate recovery proceedings against Bhupinder Singh qua his share, in case he makes any default to the repayment of loan to the applicant-bank.
(2.) The facts which enumerates from the file would go on to show that civil suit dated 30.08.2008 (Annexure R-2) was filed by the respondent No.1-Bank for recovery of Rs. 6,24,036/- along with interest and the property described at Schedule A, 8 Marlas of land had been mortgaged by keeping title deeds dated 12.08.1985 which were in the name of Harbhajan Singh-husband of defendant No.1 and father of respondents No.2 to 4. Defendant No.5 Pritpal Singh was also owner of the property and also thus arrayed as a party. The alleged mortgage was created on 06.09.2005 and thereafter Harbhajan Singh died in the year 2006. The application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC (Annexure P-1) was filed in February, 2011 by the petitioner-bank on the ground that notice had been issued in the civil suit which was fixed for ex parte evidence and the knowledge had come from the counsel for the plaintiff-bank, who had served a notice on 15.12.2010. Accordingly, sanction had been taken on 17.02.2011 and the application has been filed submitting that regarding the same property 4 Marlas had been mortgaged by way of deposit of original title deed dated 03.05.2007 by Bhupinder Singh son of Harbhajan Singh. It is, accordingly, submitted that the bank was necessary party to be impleaded in the suit. The application was contested on the ground that subsequent mortgage had no effect on the prior mortgage and the applicant-bank would not have any right in the suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff. The title deed dated 03.05.2007 was alleged to be fraud and accordingly the application was contested.
(3.) The trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that it is a subsequent transaction and if the bank has any outstanding against Bhupinder Singh, the bank can prefer separate recovery proceedings and more-over no where it has been alleged that said Bhupinder Singh had defaulted. The sale deed in favour of Bhupinder Singh was also a subsequent one and therefore application was without any basis.;