B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE 2nd defendant in O. S. No. 320 of 1987 on the file of the learned Principal Senior civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at saroornagar is the appellant in this appeal. For the sake of convenience we shall refer to the parties as arrayed in the suit. ( 2 ) THE 1st respondent herein filed the said suit initially against the 1st defendant (2nd respondent herein) alone for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,99,906. 42 Ps. The Court, by order dated 10-8-1995 in I. A. No. 622 of 1994, brought on record the appellant herein as the 2nd defendant in the suit. ( 3 ) THE case of the plaintiff in brief is that the 1st defendant - a private limited company approached the plaintiff for sale of electrical components on credit basis and agreed to pay the bills at the time stipulated in the bills and hundis. The plaintiff accordingly agreed to supply the said goods on the said basis. The plaintiff also opened a current and running account in the name of the 1st defendant in their books of accounts which were maintained in regular course of business. ( 4 ) THE plaintiff, on the basis of the demand made by the 1st defendant, supplied the goods on various invoices from 18-12-1983 to 18-7-1985 as per the statement of account after giving due credit to the payments made. It is the case of the plaintiff that an amount of Rs. 2,00,298. 35 ps. became due from the 1st defendant. The plaintiff got issued legal notices to the 1st defendant demanding the said amount. Despite receipt of the said legal notices the 1st defendant defaulted in payment of the said amount. It is in those circumstances the plaintiff laid the suit. ( 5 ) THE 1st defendant filed detailed written statement inter alia denying all the material allegations and averments made in the plaint. The main case of the 1st defendant is that the plaintiff did not give credit to some of the payments made by it and, therefore, the accounts maintained by the plaintiff cannot be said to be correct. They were not maintained in the regular course of business. The plaintiff did not account for the material returned by the 1st defendant. The material transferred by the 1st defendant was not properly shown in the books of accounts. They were not maintained in the regular course of business. The plaintiff did not account for the material returned by the 1st defendant. The material transferred by the 1st defendant was not properly shown in the books of accounts. The statement of account is seriously disputed by the 1st defendant. It is also the case of the 1st defendant that on several occasions the plaintiff supplied goods at high rates and also goods which were badly damaged and on many occasions television sets were returned by the customers on account of defects. The same resulted not only in losing valuable customers but also distributors and loss of faith in the quality of the 1st defendant s products. In nutshell the defence set up by the 1st defendant is one of denial of the liability. ( 6 ) THE appellant herein filed a detailed written statement after being impleaded as the 2nd defendant in the suit. It is the specific case of the 2nd defendant that it is neither proper nor necessary party to the suit. It is also the case of the 2nd defendant that there is no privity of contract either between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant or between the defendants inter se in so far as the transactions in question. It is specifically pleaded that there is no cause of action as such against the 2nd defendant. In fact that 2nd defendant pleaded that he had no knowledge whatsoever about the transactions between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. ( 7 ) ALL that the 2nd defendant stated in its written statement is that it being a government company engaged in making advances and loans to entrepreneurs with the object of industrial development in the state of Uttar Pradesh, extended financial assistance by way of term loan to the 1st defendant-company upto Rs. 17. 25 lakhs for the. purpose of manufacture of black and white and colour television sets in its project located in Gaziabad District, Uttar Pradesh as against the security of equitable mortgage and hypothecation of land, building, plant and machinery and fixed assets of the 1st defendant-company in favour of the 2nd defen dant. The 1st defendant committed default in payment of the outstanding amount to the 2nd defendant. The 1st defendant committed default in payment of the outstanding amount to the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant invoked its power under Sec. 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 and accordingly took physical possession of the mortgaged and hypothecated properties. It is the case of the 2nd defendant that the 1st defendant has failed to perform its part of the obligation and committed default in payment of loan amount. It is under those circumstances, the 2nd defendant took physical possession of the property of the 1st defendant on 7-12-1990 and thereafter the said mortgaged assets were sold to ms. I. I. H. T. Systems Limited under an agreement of sale dated 28-2-1995. Even after realizing the sale proceeds of the mortgaged assets of the 1st defendant, the 1st defendant was still due to pay a sum of rs. 13,24,444. 05 ps. to the 2nd defendant for which a demand notice was issued to the guarantors to liquidate the said company. ( 8 ) IN nutshell the 2nd defendant pleaded that it has nothing to do with the transactions between the 1st defendant and the plaintiff and is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff for and on behalf of the 1st defendant. ( 9 ) THE learned trial Judge framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount? (2) Whether the plaintiff supplied the damaged goods to the defendants? (3) To what relief? ( 10 ) ON behalf of the plaintiff P. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-32 were marked. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the defendants. No evidence was let in. ( 11 ) THE learned trial Judge found all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and accordingly decreed the suit of the plaintiff as against both the defendants. Hence, this appeal. ( 12 ) IN this appeal Sri B. Venkatrama Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant 2nd defendant contends that the 2nd defendant is neither a proper nor a necessary party to the suit. It is submitted that even if all the allegations and averments made in the plaint are taken to be true no case as such was made out against the 2nd defendant. It is submitted that even if all the allegations and averments made in the plaint are taken to be true no case as such was made out against the 2nd defendant. It is submitted that the decree granted by the trial court for recovery of the amount as against the 2nd defendant suffers from incurable infirmities. ( 13 ) NONE appears on behalf of the plaintiff in spite of service of notice. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. We have gone through the judgment of the trial court. We must express our unhappiness for the manner in which the trial Judge disposed of the suit. Strangely the learned judge did not answer any of the issues settled for trial. There is no finding whatsoever recorded by the learned Judge even as against the 1st defendant as to how the 1st defendant is liable to pay the amount to the plaintiff. The learned Judge did not even discuss he oral and documentary evidence on record. At any rate, we do not propose to express any opinion as to whether the plaintiff can still proceed as against the 1st defendant for realization of the amounts, if any, due under the decree since there is no appeal as such preferred by the 1st defendant. ( 14 ) THE short question that falls for consideration is as to whether the plaintiff has made out any case as such against the 2nd defendant. ( 15 ) THE 2nd defendant is brought on record in the suit by an order dated 10-8-1995 in I. A. No. 622 of 1994. The allegations made in the plaint exclusively against the 1st defendant remain as they are since no amendment of the plaint was made after impleadment of the appellant herein as the 2nd defendant. There is no allegation whatsoever against the 2nd defendant in the plaint. Nothing is stated as to in what manner the 2nd defendant is liable to pay any amount whatsoever to the plaintiff for and on behalf of the 1st defendant. It is very well settled that any amount of evidence without a proper foundation in the pleading is of no consequence. Nothing is stated as to in what manner the 2nd defendant is liable to pay any amount whatsoever to the plaintiff for and on behalf of the 1st defendant. It is very well settled that any amount of evidence without a proper foundation in the pleading is of no consequence. In the circumstances, we are inclined to agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the plaint does nob disclose any cause of action whatsoever as against the 2nd defendant. The decree as against the 2nd defendant is liable to be set aside on that simple ground. ( 16 ) BE that as it may, we propose to consider the validity of the reasoning given by the learned trial Judge to decree the suit as against the 2nd defendant. ( 17 ) THE learned Judge relied upon the averments made in the written statement by the 2nd defendant in which it is stated that the 2nd defendant in exercise of its statutory power under Section 29 of the State financial Corporations Act, 1951 took physical possession of the properties mortgaged and hypothecated by the 1st defendant at the time of obtaining loan by the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge misinterpreted the written statement and accordingly held as if the 2nd defendant had taken over both the assets and liabilities of the 1st defendant and the management of the affairs of the 1st defendant-company. In our considered opinion, the observations so made by the learned Judge adverting to the written statement of the 2nd defendant are totally untenable and unsustainable. The observations so made are nothing short of distortion of the pleadings. ( 18 ) SUFFICE to notice that there is no admission in the written statement by ,the 2nd defendant accepting any liability whatsoever for and on behalf of the 1st defendant. On the other hand, it is specifically pleaded that the 2nd defendant is not even aware of any transaction of whatever nature between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. There is no evidence whatsoever let in by the plaintiff in order to establish the liability of the 2nd defendant in the matter. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the 2nd defendant was impleaded as a formal party. There is no evidence whatsoever let in by the plaintiff in order to establish the liability of the 2nd defendant in the matter. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the 2nd defendant was impleaded as a formal party. In the absence of any specific plea as against the 2nd defendant and in the absence of any evidence no decree as such could have been passed by the learned trial Judge as against the 2nd defendant. The decree, in our considered opinion, passed by the learned trial Judge as against the 2nd defendant is totally untenable and unsustainable. ( 19 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons the decree and judgment of the trial court as against the 2nd defendant are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. ( 20 ) THE 2nd defendant is entitled to withdraw the suit costs stated to have been deposited in the court below pursuant to the direction of this Court, without furnishing any security. Upon an application to be filed by the appellant in that regard the trial court shall pay the said amount tp the appellant 2nd defendant. No costs.