( 1 ) THE first defendant in O. S. No. 4/84 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, chittoor had filed the present appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chittoor dated 15-7-1987 made in O. S. No. 4/84. The respondent in the appeal, the Karur Vysya bank Ltd. , is the plaintiff in the suit. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit AS plaintiff- respondent herein and the first defendant- appellant herein. The first defendant is t. D. Raja Reddi and Company, Chittoor. The plaintiff had filed a suit on the foot of a bill dated 10-6-1982 marked as Ex. A-2 to recover a total sum of Rs. 20,936/- from the defendants. The respective pleadings of the parties are as follows: the plaintiff bank is a schedule bank having its registered office in Karuru, tamilnadu. It has several branches all over india including one branch at Chittoor. The defendants 2 and 3 are partners of the 1st defendant-firm carrying on business in jaggery, groundnut etc. , at the premises bearing No. 18-3-33, Mundy Street, chittoor. At the request of the 1st defendant-firm the plaintiff-bank sanctioned certain facilities to it in the matter of purchase of discount of bills to the extent of Rs. 50,000/ -. The defendants 2 and 3 who are the partners of the 1st defendant- firm executed a deed of indemnity on 10-6-82 in favour of the plaintiff-bank on behalf of the 1st defendant-firm. The 1st defendant-firm presented to the plaintiff- bank the R. R. standing in the name of sri Gouri Traders, Chittoor after it was duly endorsed in its favour with the bill for purchase of Jaggery. The details of the bill are as follows: ( 2 ) THE second defendant had filed a written statement, which was adopted by the defendant Nos. 1 and 3. As already stated supra, the first defendant alone had preferred the appeal stating that the other defendants in the suit are not necessary parties to the appeal since no relief is claimed against them. It was pleaded by the second defendant in the written statement that the bill for Rs. 22,500/- sent by him on 10-6-1982 to the plaintiff-bank for discount is only a sort of indemnity on behalf of Sri gouri Traders, Chittoor, who applied for a loan of Rs. 75,000/- from the plaintiff-bank. It was pleaded by the second defendant in the written statement that the bill for Rs. 22,500/- sent by him on 10-6-1982 to the plaintiff-bank for discount is only a sort of indemnity on behalf of Sri gouri Traders, Chittoor, who applied for a loan of Rs. 75,000/- from the plaintiff-bank. It was understood that Sri Gouri Traders should receive the sum of Rs. 22,500/- which is covered under the bill from the plaintiff-bank and that the same should be recovered from Sri Gouri Traders only out of the loan of Rs. 75,000/- which was to be sanctioned to it by the plaintiff-bank accordingly, the entire amount of rs. 22,500/- was received only by Srigouri traders, Chittoor, when bill was returned on 9-10-1982. Sri Gouri Traders, Chittoor remitted the sum of Rs. 7,000/- to the plaintiff-bank under the name of this defendant. Even at the time, the plaintiff bank assured this defendant that the balance of Rs. 15,000/- would be recovered from Sri Gouri Traders, Chittoor. Thus, this defendant did not have the benefit of any portion of consideration of Rs. 22,500/- due under the bill. Therefore, it is not fair on the part of the plaintiff-bank to demand the payment of amounts from this defendant, as it is contrary to the understanding between this defendant, Sri Gouri Traders, chittoor and the plaintiff-bank. The plaintiff bank has to proceed only against Sri Gouri traders for recovery of the amount claimed in the suit. The plaintiff bank filed the suit against this defendant just to have wrongful gain from them. Hence, the suit has to be dismissed with exemplary costs as contemplated under Sec. 35-A of C. F. C. ( 3 ) AFTER -one R. K. Dharmavijaya, manager of the plaintiff-bank was examined as P. W. 1 in chief on 18-6-1985, an additional written statement was received by the Court below on 22-6-1985 as per orders in I. A. No. 475/85 and it was pleaded in the additional written statement that this defendant was the managing partner of the 1st defendant firm. Sri Gouri Traders, chittoor, carried on business dealing with this defendant since 1981. About 15 days prior to 5-6-1982, Sri Gouri Traders, chittoor, purchased jaggery from the 1st defendant firm and issued a cheque bearing no. CE 343080 dated 5-6-82 for Rs. 5,000/- drawn on Karur Vysya Bank Limited, chittoor. Sri Gouri Traders, chittoor, carried on business dealing with this defendant since 1981. About 15 days prior to 5-6-1982, Sri Gouri Traders, chittoor, purchased jaggery from the 1st defendant firm and issued a cheque bearing no. CE 343080 dated 5-6-82 for Rs. 5,000/- drawn on Karur Vysya Bank Limited, chittoor. Thereupon, this defendant issued a self-cheque bearing No. CD 791939 dated 5-6-82 to withdraw the said amount of Rs. 5,000/ -. A token was also issued by the plaintiff-bank at Chittoor asking this defendant to come to the bank at 2. 00 p. m. The manager of the plaintiff-bank at chittoor by name Kannan was then a tenant in the house of Sri Gouri Traders. On 5-6-1982, this defendant again went to the plaintiff-bank at Chiitoor, one Gouri who was the managing partner of Sri Gouri traders was talking with the above said kannan. Kannan informed this defendant that there was no money in the bank to the credit of Gouri Traders. Kannan then received token from this defendant and cancelled this defendant s cheque. L. Kannan and Gouri asked this defendant to come on 10-6-1982. When this defendant went to the plaintiff-bank on that day, kannan and Gouri showed him the R. R. standing in the name of Sri Gouri Traders for transport of 299 bags of jaggery to bombay to Kalpana Traders and asked this defendant to sign on the bank of the R. R. informing him that amount of Rs. 5,000/- would be given to him after Kalpana traders honoured the bill. They further asked this defendant to issue a cheque for rs. 30,500/- in favour of Sri Gouri Traders for the value of the goods. Accordingly, this defendant issued a cheque. This defendant does not know as to what happened thereafter. This defendant demanded the plaintiff bank and Sri Gouri Traders for return of the money. About 3 months thereafter, this defendant received a notice from the plaintiff-bank stating that Kalpana traders have not honoured the bill. Kannan in collusion with Sri Gouri Traders, chittoor, has filed this suit against this defendant without impleading Sri Gouri traders who is the principal debtor. It is astonishing to see as to why the creditor should file suit only against the guarantor leaving behind the principal debtor. The suit is therefore bad for non-joinder of necessary party. Kannan in collusion with Sri Gouri Traders, chittoor, has filed this suit against this defendant without impleading Sri Gouri traders who is the principal debtor. It is astonishing to see as to why the creditor should file suit only against the guarantor leaving behind the principal debtor. The suit is therefore bad for non-joinder of necessary party. This defendant out of confidence reposed in Sri Gouri Traders signed on the back of R. R. without receiving any consideration. The suit is not maintainable against the defendants. This defendant is an agriculturist entitled to the benefits under the provisions of Act IV of 1938. ( 4 ) AFTER the additional written statement was filed, the plaintiff-bank had filed a rejoinder to the following effect: ( 5 ) IT is but natural to return the cheque, if there are no funds standing to the credit of the drawer. Hence, no motives can be attributed to the then Manager of the plaintiff-bank, Chittoor. Further, the dealings between the defendants and sri Gouri Traders is a matter to be settled between themselves. Even according to the defendants, the defendants and Sri Gouri traders are having business dealings since 1981. Probably, it is out of such a relationship, the defendant might have obliged Sri Gouri Traders and in such transactions, the plaintiff-bank had absolutely no part to play. In view of the facility sanctioned to the 1st defendant firm, the plaintiff-bank accepted the. bill and raised documents for clearance after paying the defendants. When the bills were not cleared by the consignee, it is only the defendants that are liable to pay the amount to the plaintiff-bank. Therefore, no notice was issued by the plaintiff bank informing the defendant about the consignee s failure to honour the bill. The plaintiff-bank had no privity of contract with Sri Gouri Traders in so far as the suit transaction is concerned. Hence, it is false to say that Kannan and sri Gouri Tranders colluded together and filed the suit. The defendants are not guarantors, but only the debtors. It is only the defendants who discounted the two r. Rs. for Rs. 22,500/- and Rs. 8,000/- totaling a sum of Rs. 30,500/ -. Hence, the defendants alone are liable to pay the suit debt. Since the defendants are not agriculturists, the debt is not liable to be scaled down under the provisions of Act IV of 1938. It is only the defendants who discounted the two r. Rs. for Rs. 22,500/- and Rs. 8,000/- totaling a sum of Rs. 30,500/ -. Hence, the defendants alone are liable to pay the suit debt. Since the defendants are not agriculturists, the debt is not liable to be scaled down under the provisions of Act IV of 1938. The 1st defendant is a firm and it is certainly not an agriculturist. Further, the amount due is with reference to a commercial transaction and the defendants are bound to pay the interest at the contract rate as per Section 34 of the C. P. C. ( 6 ) ON the original pleadings of the parties, the following issues had been framed: (1) Whether the defendants are not liable to pay the suit amount as contended by them in the written statement of the 2nd defendant? (2) To what relief? ( 7 ) SUBSEQUENT thereto, on 3-7-1985 another issue was framed: "whether the defendants are agriculturists within the meaning of Act IV of 1938 and if so, whether the suit debt is liable to be scaled down?" on 10-7-1985, yet another additional issue was framed "whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party i. e. , Sri Gouri Traders, Chittoor?" ( 8 ) THE Court below had answered issue no. 1 at paragraph No. 8 and the additional issues at paragraph Nos. 9 and 10, and on appreciation of the evidence of P. W. 1 and d. Ws. 1 to 4, Exs. A-1 to A-13 and Exs. B-1 to B-4 and Ex. C-1, the Court below came to the conclusion that the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to a decree with costs as prayed for. The first defendant-T. D. Raja Reddi and co. , Chittoor, aggrieved by the said judgment and decree had preferred the present appeal. ( 9 ) SRI M. Vidyasagar, the learned counsel representing the appellant with all vehement contended that the Court below had totally erred in decreeing the suit based on the foot of bill, dated 10-7-1982 for a sum of Rs. , Chittoor, aggrieved by the said judgment and decree had preferred the present appeal. ( 9 ) SRI M. Vidyasagar, the learned counsel representing the appellant with all vehement contended that the Court below had totally erred in decreeing the suit based on the foot of bill, dated 10-7-1982 for a sum of Rs. 20,986/- and the learned Counsel had pointed out that the material available on record clearly establishes the fact that the transaction relates to Gouri Traders in respect of supply of jaggery by the said gouri Traders to Kalpana Traders at bombay and the Railway Receipt in this regard had been sent to the plaintiff bank for clearance and this Railway Receipt meant for Gouri Traders was misused for entangling the first defendant as the Bank manager and the said Gouri Traders had colluded to fasten the liability on the first defendant by obtaining the signatures of the second defendant on blank papers or an endorsement on Railway Receipt which in turn had been used as indemnity bond. The learned Counsel also had contended that at the time when the so called indemnity bond ex. A-2 was taken, the plaintiff-bank had obtained the signatures of the second defendant without disclosing the contents or the purpose for which the signatures were required and thus it is a case of fraud played by the plaintiff-bank at the instance of Sri Gouri Traders to make illegal gain. The learned Counsel also had contended that the second defendant had simply presented a cheque for Rs. 5,000/- issued by gouri Traders in his favour to the plaintiff bank, which was dishonoured and in order to cover up that mistake, the plaintiff-bank had committed several mistakes and had admitted to fasten the liability on the first defendant and the amount under the said bill was not paid to the first defendant at all and the first defendant is not at all concerned with the said transaction. The learned Counsel also had taken me through the respective pleadings of the parties and had pointed out the findings given by the court below and had submitted that the appreciation of evidence by the Court below is totally erroneous. The learned Counsel also had taken me through the respective pleadings of the parties and had pointed out the findings given by the court below and had submitted that the appreciation of evidence by the Court below is totally erroneous. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to the evidence of D. W. 1, D. W. 2, D. W. 3 and d. W. 4 and has laid much emphasis on the evidence of both D. W. 2 and D. W. 3, which definitely lend support to his case. The learned Counsel also had pointed out that the evidence on record clearly goes to show that the Gouri Traders alone is a principal debtor and leaving the Gouri Traders, the plaintiff-bank had instituted the suit against the defendants only. The learned Counsel also had strenuously contended that the suit itself is not maintainable without impleading Gouri Traders, which is a proper and necessary party. ( 10 ) SRI P. Rajasekhar representing sri P. V. R. Sharma, the learned Counsel representing the respondent-plaintiff had made the following submissions: the learned Counsel had pointed out to the pleadings and had submitted that though an allegation of collusion had been vaguely pleaded, the allegation of fraud was not pleaded. The learned Counsel also had submitted that the Court below on appreciation of evidence had arrived at a conclusion that even the plea of collusion had not been established. The learned counsel had contended that it is a simple suit for recovery of money based on the bill- ex. A-2. It was further submitted that in the light of Exs. A-1 and A-2, the Court below, in fact, had arrived at the correct conclusion and had granted the decree as prayed for. The learned Counsel also had pointed out that the evidence of D. W. 2 and D. W. 3 also do not help the first defendant in proving its case. The learned Counsel had stressed on the aspect of privity of contract and had contended that the plaintiff-bank is interested in recovery of amount on the strength that the plaintiff-bank is not concerned with any other dispute, if any, between the Gouri Traders and the first defendant, as the case may be. The learned Counsel had stressed on the aspect of privity of contract and had contended that the plaintiff-bank is interested in recovery of amount on the strength that the plaintiff-bank is not concerned with any other dispute, if any, between the Gouri Traders and the first defendant, as the case may be. The learned counsel also had pointed out that since the suit is for the enforcement of a bill, Gouri traders is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit and hence, the Court below had correctly arrived at a conclusion that the suit is not bad for non-joinder of a necessary party. ( 11 ) ON hearing both the Counsel on record at length, the following points arise for consideration in this appeal: (1) Whether the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to recover the amount on the strength of Exs. A-1 and A-2 in the light of the facts and circumstances pleaded by the second defendant in the written statement? (2) Whether the first defendant- appellant was able to substantiate the ground of collusion or fraud raised by him in the pleading or the grounds of appeal? (3) Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of Gouri Traders? (4) To what relief? ( 12 ) FOR the purpose of convenience, points No. 1 and 2 can be discussed together. The suit is based on the strength of a bill Ex. A-2, dated 10-6-1982 and the indemnity bond executed by defendants in favour of plaintiff-bank, which was marked as Ex. A-1, the Railway Receipt bearing r. R. No. C 364685 dated 10-6-1982 was marked as Ex. A-3 and the endorsement made in favour of first defendant-firm on behalf of Gouri Traders on the reverse of ex. A-3 was marked as Ex. A-4 and the endorsement made in favour of plaintiff- bank on behalf of the first defendant-firm on reverse of Ex. A-3 was marked as ex. A-5. Inasmuch as, Ex. A-2 was issued in the name of the first defendant-firm by Sri gouri Traders, the said bill also had been endorsed in favour of plaintiff-bank as per endorsement Ex. A-10 made on its back on behalf of the first defendant firm and in fact on the strength of the endorsement Ex. A-5 made on the back of Ex. A-2, the plaintiff- back had made payment to the second defendant, who represents the first defendant firm. A-10 made on its back on behalf of the first defendant firm and in fact on the strength of the endorsement Ex. A-5 made on the back of Ex. A-2, the plaintiff- back had made payment to the second defendant, who represents the first defendant firm. As already stated supra, the first defendant alone had filed the appeal. However, P. W. 1 had deposed in detail about all these aspects. Though Ex. A-3, ex. A-4 land A-10 were not deposited by the defendants, the stand appears to be that the transaction was in relation to a discount to the plaintiff-bank as a sort of indemnity on behalf of Sri Gouri Traders, who applied for some loan and in the light of the understanding Sri Gouri Traders alone has received the entire amount covered by ex. A-2 from the plaintiff-bank and hence, the very institution of the suit is contrary to the understanding. between Gouri Traders- plaintiff-bank-first defendant. The details of the transactions narrated by P. W. 1 in his cross-examination were not seriously disputed except making an attempt to show that there is an element of collusion between the plaintiff-bank arid Gouri traders in the light of the intimacy of Gouri traders with one Kannan, who was connected with the plaintiff-bank. In fact, d. W. 1, i. e. , the second defendant had admitted the endorsements made on ex. A4, Ex. A-5 and Ex. A-10, but had given an explanation that he was hoping that he would get from the plaintiff-bank a sum of rs. 5,000/- which was refused to be paid to him on presentation of a self-cheque ex. B-2, dated 5-6-1982, issued by him on the plaintiff-bank along with another cheque Ex. B-3, dated 5-6-1982, issued in favour of first defendant firm by Sri Gouri traders for Rs. 5,000/- on the plaintiff-bank. It is, no doubt, true that D. W. 2 was examined but had in a way supported the case of the first defendant though not totally but substantially. But, however, it is pertinent to note that the very possession of ex. B-2 and Ex. B-3 with the defendants appear to be a bit of amusing and rather fishy. It is, no doubt, true that D. W. 2 was examined but had in a way supported the case of the first defendant though not totally but substantially. But, however, it is pertinent to note that the very possession of ex. B-2 and Ex. B-3 with the defendants appear to be a bit of amusing and rather fishy. The Court below, in fact, had discussed about the evidence of D. W. 1 arid d. W. 2 taking all the aspects into consideration and had arrived at a conclusion that the defence of the defendants cannot be believed at all. In fact the payment of Rs. 7,000/- was made by the clerk of the first defendant firm under voucher Ex. A-11 to the credit of the first defendant firm and in the light of the same, the denial of suggestion by D. W. 1 that such payment has been made by the first defendant firm and not by Sri Gouri traders is quiet curious and amusing. It is also pertinent to note that Kalpana Traders at Bombay are not at all concerned with the liability of the defendants involved in the suit transaction. In fact, the evidence of d. W, 2 had been discussed in detail by the court below. It is also pertinent to note that d. W, 2 had admitted that the payment of rs. 7,000/- to the plaintiff-bank in relation to a suit transaction had not been entered into their account books at all. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, apart from the evidence of D. W. 1 and D. W. 2, had drawn my attention to the evidence of d. W. 3, who is a senior clerk of Wadi bandar Goods Depot, Central Railway, and bombay. The learned Counsel had stressed on the evidence of D. W. 3 that the goods under Ex. A-3 were pledged with Karur vysya Bank, Bombay and after receipt of the goods in their goods shed, none came to claim the goods and therefore, the goods were sold on 13-1-1983 in public auction by the Central Railway at Wadi Bander Goods depot for Rs. 6,600/ -. The learned Counsel had, no doubt, pointed out that this evidence of D. W. 3 had been totally ignored. The evidence of D. W. 4-Shantial manilal through whom Ex. 6,600/ -. The learned Counsel had, no doubt, pointed out that this evidence of D. W. 3 had been totally ignored. The evidence of D. W. 4-Shantial manilal through whom Ex. C. 1-an affidavit dated 13-10-1986 was marked is to the following effect:"that he had not placed orders for the supply of goods from Gouri Traders at chittoor at any time and two hundies were presented by Karuru Vysya bank, Mandavi Branch, Bombay on 15-6-1982 and he had dishonoured them as the prices of the goods have fallen down and the jaggery was black and bad and it was also wet and the gouri Traders of Chittor sent that jaggery to him for sale on commission basis and one of the two hundies was taken away by the representatives of gouri Traders and passed on to a third party in Bombay and realised the amount and he does not know the first defendant company at Chittoor and he had seen the jaggery at Wadi Bandar railway Station and he had seen the jaggery about 12 days after arrival of the goods at the railway station and some employees of Karur Vysya Bank, mandavi Branch, Bombay presented the intimation to him to clear the two hundies. " ( 13 ) IN the background of the facts narrated of, it may also be pertinent to note the pleadings of the parties, the respective contentions of the parties and ultimately the question that has to be decided is whether the plaintiff can fasten the liability on the defendants on the strength of Ex. A-1 and ex. A-2. In the present case, in substance, the stand of the second defendant is that since one Kannan was residing in the upstairs portion and was obliged to Gouri traders, instead of impleading or proceeding against Gouri Traders, the plaintiff-bank had chosen to institute the suit against this defendant. It is pertinent to note that the plea of fraud had not been specifically raised as a plea, but, no doubt, as far as the allegation of collusion is concerned, an allegation had been made in this regard. Order VI Rule 1 of the Code of civil Procedure specifies "pleading" shall mean plaint or written statement. It is pertinent to note that the plea of fraud had not been specifically raised as a plea, but, no doubt, as far as the allegation of collusion is concerned, an allegation had been made in this regard. Order VI Rule 1 of the Code of civil Procedure specifies "pleading" shall mean plaint or written statement. Order VI rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure dealing with "particulars to be given where necessary" specifies as follows:"in all cases in which the party pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default, or undue influence, and in all other cases in which particulars may be necessary beyond such as are exemplified in the forms aforesaid, particulars (with dates and items if necessary) shall be stated in the pleading. "order VIII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil procedure dealing with "new facts must be specially pleaded" reads as follows:"the defendant must raise by his pleading all matters which show the suit not to be maintainable, or that the transaction is either void or voidable in point of law, and all such grounds of defence as, if not raised, would be likely to take the opposite party by surprise, or would raise issues of fact not arising out of the plaint, as, for instance, fraud, limitation, release, payment, performance, or facts showing illegality. "from these provisions it is clear that the plea of fraud has to be specifically pleaded and all the details ought to be specifically narrated and in the absence of the same, the said plea cannot be entertained. In varanasaya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya and another v. Dr. Rajkishore Tripathi and another it was held that allegations of collusion implying some kind of fraud, it is not enough to state in general term that there was "collusion" without more particulars, in Bishundeo v. Seogeni Rai it was held that general allegations are insufficient even to amount an averment of fraud of which any court ought to take notice however strong the language in which they are couched may be, and the same applies to undue influence and coercion. In Nagubai Ammal and others v, B. Shama Rao and others while dealing with the fundamental distinction between a proceeding which is collusive and one which is fraudulent, the Apex court held "there is a fundamental distinction between a proceeding which is collusive and one which is fraudulent. In Nagubai Ammal and others v, B. Shama Rao and others while dealing with the fundamental distinction between a proceeding which is collusive and one which is fraudulent, the Apex court held "there is a fundamental distinction between a proceeding which is collusive and one which is fraudulent. Collusion in judicial proceeding is a secret arrangement between two persons that the one should institute a suit against the other in order to obtain the decision of a judicial tribunal for some sinister purpose. (Wharton s Law Lexicon, 14th Edn. , p. 212 ). In such a proceeding, the claim put forward is fictitious, the contest over it is unreal, and the decree passed therein is a mere mask having the similitude of a judicial determination and worn by the parties with the object of confounding third parties. But, when a proceeding is alleged to be fraudulent, what is meant is that the claim made therein is untrue, but that the claimant has managed to obtain the verdict of the Court in his favour and against his opponent by practicing fraud on the Court. Such a proceeding is started with a view to injure the opponent, and there can be no question of its having been initiated as the result of an understanding between the parties. While in collusive proceedings the combat is a mere sham, in a fraudulent suit it is real and earnest. " In the light of legal position discussed above, it is to be seen whether the plea of collusion of fraud, as the case may be, had been substantiated in the present case. It is the case of the plaintiff that on the strength of Ex. A-2 and Ex. A-1, the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of amount. It is a suit based on a simple contract. The defence of the defendants is that though, in fact, they can be styled, at the best, as guarantors, but not into the position of principal debtors leaving the gouri Traders. The main allegation is. that one Kannan, who was concerned with the plaintiff-bank had been residing in the upstairs portion of Gouri Traders and he was obliged to the said Gouri Traders in the financial transactions. It is pertinent to note that the parties are bound by the contract- exs. A-1 and A-2. The main allegation is. that one Kannan, who was concerned with the plaintiff-bank had been residing in the upstairs portion of Gouri Traders and he was obliged to the said Gouri Traders in the financial transactions. It is pertinent to note that the parties are bound by the contract- exs. A-1 and A-2. I am also of the considered opinion that the vague allegation of collusion by virtue of one Kannan concerned with the plaintiff-bank, residing in the upstairs portion of Gouri Traders cannot be taken as a strong proof so as to disact or counter act, the liability fixed by law on the defendants by virtue of Exs, A-1 and A-2. I am of the considered opinion that even the evidence of D. W. 3 and D. W. 4 coupled with the evidence of D. W. 2 cannot in any way help the case of the defendants in the light of the clear proof of Exs. A-1 and a-2 which had been duly proved by examining P. W. 1 and which in fact had not been disputed even by the defendants in the present case. Hence, once the stand of collusion taken by the defendants had not been established, then in Law, the plaintiff is entitled to enforce Ex, A-2 coupled with ex. A-1 and hence entitled to recover the amount from the defendants. As already pointed out, the second defendant had filed the written statement, but, however, the first defendant alone had preferred an appeal stating that the other defendants are not necessary parties to be impleaded as parties to the present appeal. Hence, points no. 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. ( 14 ) POINT No. 3: The next important aspect which in fact had been elaborately argued by Sri M. Vidyasagar is that the very framing of the suit is bad and defective for non-imp leading the Gouri Traders, a necessary and at any rate, definitely a proper party to the suit. It is pertinent to note that there is an essential distinction between a necessary party and a proper party to a suit and necessary parties are parties necessary to the very framing of the suit, without whom no decree can be passed at all and proper parties are those whose presence may enable the Court to adjudicate more effectively and completely the questions raised in the suit. The learned counsel for the appellant had pointed out several transactions, wherein Gouri Traders also, are no doubt concerned it may be that the plaintiff-bank in all fairness could have impleaded even Gouri Traders as a party to the suit in the light of the material available on record. But, however, at the best one can say that Gouri Traders only is a proper party to the suit and not a necessary party and hence, the suit relief cannot be rejected on the ground of the non-impleading such a proper party. It can be relevant here itself to refer to Order I Rule 3 and Rule 9 of the code of Civil Procedure. Order I Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure dealing with "who may be joined as defendants" reads as follows:"all persons may be joined in one suit as defendants where- (a) any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist against such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternatives; and (b) if separate suits were brought against such persons, any common question of law or fact would arise;"order I Rule 9 of the Code of Civil procedure dealing with "mis-joinder and non-joinder" specifies as follows: "no suit shall be defeated by reason of the mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties, and the Court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it. " it is pertinent to note that the proviso in order I Rule 9 of the Code of Civil procedure specifies that nothing in this rule shall apply to non-joinder of a necessary party. Hence, in the light of the specific provisions and also in the light of Exs. A-1 to A-10, the privity of contract is only in between the plaintiff and the defendants and not the Gouri Traders and hence, the court below had arrived at a correct conclusion that Gouri Traders, Chittoor, is not a necessary party to the suit: and hence, there is no defect in framing the suit as such. The point is answered accordingly. The point is answered accordingly. ( 15 ) AS far as the aspect of the plea of agriculturist is concerned, neither of the parties had advanced any arguments in this regard and hence, there is no necessity of answering this aspect. ( 16 ) FOR the foregoing reasons recorded above, the respondent-plaintiff had proved the suit claim against the defendants and hence, the judgment and decree made by the Court below are hereby affirmed and the appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly the same is dismissed with costs.