Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 110 (PNJ)

Punjab National Bank v. State Bank Of India

2002-01-25

M.M.KUMAR

body2002
Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 11.5.1993 passed by Sub Judge 2nd Class, Chandigarh dismissing the application of the petitioner-plaintiff filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity, the Code) seeking impleadment of legal representatives of one Shri Sukhchain Singh. 2. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction against respondent-defendant No. 1 seeking direction that respondent-defendant No. 1 be restrained from making payment concealing special bearer bonds to any one else except the petitioner-plaintiff. During the course of proceedings, the trial Court ordered that Shri Ratesh Kumar and Miss Kavita may be impleaded as defendants as they were considered necessary parties because they have claimed to be the owners and in possession of the bearer bonds which is subject matter of the suit. After the impleadment of Shri Ratesh Kumar and Miss Kavita, it was revealed that they had purchased the disputed bearer bonds from one Shri Sukhchain Singh which is claimed by the petitioner-plaintiff to be its property. The special bearer bonds are worth Rs. 1,20,000/-. The petitioner-plaintiff had issued a bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. One lac in favour of Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation. The bonds were alleged to be stolen from the bank and a First Information Report No. 91 of 1986 was lodged at Police Station, Sector 17, Chandigarh on 27.2.1986. Shri Sukhchain Singh who is stated to have died, pledged the bearer bonds with the bank on the basis of which bank guarantee was given. It was in these circumstances that an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code was filed so that the matter in dispute is adjudicated properly, effectually and completely. The trial Court after recording these facts, dismissed the application on 11.5.1993 by recording the following order: "After hearing the ld. counsel for the parties, this Court finds no merit in the application. It is not disputed that said Sukhchain Singh was never a party to the suit. When he was never a party to the suit, then there is no question to bring his legal heirs on record. Application is not maintainable at this state and nothing is on record whether the disputed bearer bonds was ever possessed by Sukhchain Singh. Application stands dismissed and disposed of accordingly." 3. When he was never a party to the suit, then there is no question to bring his legal heirs on record. Application is not maintainable at this state and nothing is on record whether the disputed bearer bonds was ever possessed by Sukhchain Singh. Application stands dismissed and disposed of accordingly." 3. I have perused the grounds of revision in which the challenge has been made to the impugned order principally on the ground that the trial Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction by refusing to implead the legal representatives of Sukhchain Singh. The only ground which constitutes the basis of impugned order dated 11.5.1993 is that once Sukhchain Singh was not a party to the suit himself, his legal representatives can also not be made party. A perusal of Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code makes it obvious that the Court may at any stage of the suit order any other person to be added as plaintiff or defendant on the ground that their presence is felt necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute. The provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code read as under- "10. Suit in name of wrong plaintiff.- (1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona fide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just. (2) Court may strike oar or add parties.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. (3) No person shall be added as a plaintiff suing without a next friend or as the next friend of a plaintiff under any disability without his consent. (4) Where defendant added, plaint to be amended.- Where a defendant is added, the plaint shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be amended in such manner as may be necessary, and amended copies of the summons and of the plaint shall be served on the new defendant and, if the Court thinks fit, on the original defendant. (5) Subject to the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877 (15 of 1877), Section 22, the proceedings as against any person added as defendant shall be deemed to have begun only on the service of the summons." 4. Having thoughtfully considered the pleas raised in the grounds of revision, I am of the considered opinion that the order dated 11.5.1993 passed by the trial Court suffers from material irregularity. The case of the petitioner-plaintiff is that Shri Sukhchain Singh since dead has pledged the special bearer bonds with the Bank, on the basis of which it had given bank guarantee in favour of Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation. The presence of legal representatives of Shri Sukhchain Singh would be necessary to explain as to how the bearer bonds fell in the hands of Shri Ratesh Kumar and Miss Kavita. It is not possible to say at this stage with certainty as to whether the legal representatives of Shri Sukhchain Singh would be able to disclose the facts with respect to the special bearer bonds, yet that cannot be a ground to decline the application of the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code. The presence of the legal representatives of Shri Sukhchain Singh in the facts and circumstances of the case would help in proper adjudication of the matter in dispute. At best the legal representatives of Sukhchain Singh are proper parties. Therefore, this revision petition deserves to be allowed and the legal representatives of Shri Sukhchain Singh are liable to be impleaded. After all the petitioner-plaintiff is considered as dominus-litus and it has also chosen to implead the legal representatives of Shri Sukhchain Singh. 5. For the reasons stated above, this revision petition succeeds. Therefore, this revision petition deserves to be allowed and the legal representatives of Shri Sukhchain Singh are liable to be impleaded. After all the petitioner-plaintiff is considered as dominus-litus and it has also chosen to implead the legal representatives of Shri Sukhchain Singh. 5. For the reasons stated above, this revision petition succeeds. The impugned order dated 11.5.1993 is set aside and it is directed that the legal representatives of Shri Sukhchain Singh may be impleaded in the suit pending before the trial Court. As the proceedings have remained stayed in pursuance to the order dated 17.5.1994 passed by this Court, the trial Court is directed to decide the case finally within a period of one year from the date of passing of this order.