Vijay Bishnoi, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dt. 17.04.2013 passed by Additional District Judge No. 5, Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short 'the trial Court' hereinafter) in Civil Original Suit No. 224/2012, whereby the learned trial Court, while rejecting the applications preferred by Central Bank of India (hereinafter referred to 'as respondent -Bank') under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and under Sec. 9 read with Section 151 C.P.C., has ordered for deletion of the name of respondent -Bank from the array of defendants. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction on the strength of agreements to sale dt. 16.10.2007 and 29.11.2007 executed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in favour of the petitioner, while impleading the respondent -Bank as defendant Nos. 4 and 5. The respondent -Bank has preferred applications under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and under Sec. 9 read with Section 151 C.P.C. before the learned trial Court and prayed for dismissal of the suit. The learned trial Court, after considering the said applications and after hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties, has rejected the above applications preferred by respondent -Bank, however, has ordered for deletion of respondent -Bank from array of defendants in the suit.
(2.) BEING aggrieved with the deletion of respondent -Bank from array of defendants, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. Mr M.S. Singhvi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. O.P. Mehta, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has argued that the learned trial Court has erred in deleting the respondent -Bank from the array of defendant, though there was no specific prayer made by the respondent -Bank for deleting its name from the array of defendants in the suit and without there being any such prayer, the learned trial Court has no jurisdiction to order for deleting the respondent -Bank from the array of defendants in the suit filed by the petitioner. It is further argued that though the respondent -Bank may not be necessary party but it is a proper party and its deletion as defendants in the suit will adversely affect the rights of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, prayed that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court may be set aside to the extent of ordering for deleting the respondent -Bank from the array of defendants.
(3.) PER contra, the learned counsel for the respondents -Bank has argued that the agreements to sale executed in favour of the petitioner are admittedly executed after initiation of the proceedings under Sec. 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act of 2002' hereinafter) and, therefore, in view of the law laid down by this Court in Mohan Lal & Anr. vs. Dwarka Prasad & Ors., reported in : 2007 (6) WLC (Raj.) 584, the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in ordering for deleting the respondent -Bank from the array of defendants in the suit preferred by the petitioner for specific performance of contract against the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.;