Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1557 (HP)

Jaspreet Singh v. V. K. Rampal

2016-08-02

P.S.RANA

body2016
Order : P. S. Rana, J. Present application is filed under Order I Rule 8-A read with Order I Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Name of deceased Dr. K.N. Rampal deleted during pendency of RSA vide order dated 18.03.2014. Brief facts of the case: Plaintiffs namely Dr. K.N. Rampal & Smt. Bhagwanti Rampal filed civil suit No.82/1 of 2005/04 for declaration against State Bank of India that they had entered into an agreement for sale with Ms. Sonia Bakshi for sale of House No.3086 Sector 35-D Chandigarh for sale consideration of Rs.9,35,000/- (Rs Nine lac thirty five thousand). It is pleaded that plaintiffs had paid a sum of Rs.4,85,000/- (Rs Four lac eighty five thousand) to the vendor towards sale consideration amount. It is further pleaded that vendor did not execute registered sale deed despite receiving a sum of Rs. 4,85,000/- (Rs Four lac eighty five thousand) and thereafter plaintiffs instituted civil suit title Dr. K.N. Rampal & Others Vs. Mrs. Sonia Bakshi and others for specific performance of contract in the Court of Civil Judge Chandigarh and said suit was decreed. It is further pleaded that State Bank of India Kala Amb branch through its Branch Manager and Mrs. Sonia Bakshi and others filed two appeals against judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No.428 dated 20.12.1993 and appeal No.6 of 1994 and Civil Appeal No.111 of 1994/95 were disposed of vide same judgment on 20.11.1999 by learned District Judge Chandigarh. Learned District Judge Chandigarh modified judgment and decree of learned Trial Court with directions that Dr. K.N. Rampal and others plaintiffs would deposit Rs.4,50,000/- by 20.05.2000 in Trial Court. Learned District Judge Chandigarh further directed that if plaintiffs would not deposit amount of Rs.4,50,000/- by 20.05.2000 then suit of plaintiffs would be deemed to be dismissed. Learned District Judge Chandigarh further directed that Rs.4,50,000/- would not be paid to Mrs. Sonia Bakshi but would be paid to State Bank of India for liquidation of charge of House No.3086 Sector 35-D Chandigarh. It is further pleaded that State Bank of India Kala Amb branch has granted C.C. limit to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rs. Three lac fifty thousand) in favour of M/s Tej Straw Board Ltd. prior to sale agreement and equitable mortgage of House No.3086 Sector 35-D Chandigarh was executed in favour of State Bank of India Kala Amb branch prior to sale agreement. 3,50,000/- (Rs. Three lac fifty thousand) in favour of M/s Tej Straw Board Ltd. prior to sale agreement and equitable mortgage of House No.3086 Sector 35-D Chandigarh was executed in favour of State Bank of India Kala Amb branch prior to sale agreement. It is further pleaded that State Bank of India Kala Amb branch filed civil suit for recovery of amount and Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh on dated 15.10.1987 transferred civil suit to District Judge, Nahan in 1995. 2. It is further pleaded that civil suit No.13-N/1 of 1995/1987 title State Bank of India Vs Tej Straw Board Ltd. and others was decreed on 25.03.1997 by learned District Judge Sirmaur for recovery of Rs.3,40,028.98 (Rs. Three lac forty thousand twenty eight and ninety eight paise). Thereafter Dr. K.N. Rampal and others filed civil suit No. 82/1 of 2005/04 instituted on 11.05.2004 against State Bank of India Kala Amb branch for declaration that equitable mortgage relating to house No.3086 Sector 35-D Chandigarh was obtained by State Bank of India Kala Amb branch through its Branch Manager by way of fraud, misrepresentation and in collusion. State Bank of India Kala Amb branch H.P. moved Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Chandigarh under Section 31-A of Recovery of debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993. Debts recovery tribunal held that bank is entitled to recovery certificate of Rs.32,06,387/- alongwith cost and future interest @16% per annum with quarterly rest w.e.f. 27.02.2001 from defendants No.1 to 9 jointly and severally in terms of judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge Sirmaur dated 25.03.1997. 3. Presiding Officer of Debts recovery tribunal further directed that property i.e. House No.3086 Sector 35-D Chandigarh shall be free from any charge in respect of recovery of decretal amount. Thereafter State Bank of India Kala Amb branch District Sirmaur (H.P.) filed Appeal No.4 of 2011 title State Bank of India Vs. M/s.Tej Straw Board Pvt. Ltd. Kala Amb before Debts recovery appellate tribunal Delhi which was decided on 16.07.2013. Learned Debts recovery appellate tribunal Delhi allowed the appeal filed by State Bank of India Kala Amb branch and held that House No.3086 Sector 35-D Chandigarh shall remain under charge for recovery of decretal amount. 4. Thereafter Dr. V. K. Rampal filed civil writ petition No.346 of 2014 title Dr. V. K. Rampal Vs. Learned Debts recovery appellate tribunal Delhi allowed the appeal filed by State Bank of India Kala Amb branch and held that House No.3086 Sector 35-D Chandigarh shall remain under charge for recovery of decretal amount. 4. Thereafter Dr. V. K. Rampal filed civil writ petition No.346 of 2014 title Dr. V. K. Rampal Vs. State Bank of India and others which was decided on 14.01.2014 by Hon’ble Division Bench. Hon’ble Division Bench held that issue of equitable mortgage has become res judicata. Hon’ble Division Bench disposed of civil writ petition on 14.01.2014 with following directions : (1) In the peculiar facts of the case time prayed for redemption of property is extended by one month. (2) The petitioner will be supplied a complete statement of account by respondent-bank on a request being made within one week thereafter. (3) On the payment being made and redemption of mortgage taken place the bank will execute appropriate indemnity document in favour of petitioner as bank has admitted loss of title document. 5. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Sirmaur dismissed civil suit No. 82/1 of 2005/04 title Dr. K. N. Rampal and others Vs. State Bank of India and others on dated 31.12.2007. Thereafter civil appeal No.8-N/13 of 2008 title Sh.K.N. Rampal and others Vs. State Bank of India filed which was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge Sirmaur at Nahan on 16.07.2013. Thereafter RSA No.4326 of 2013 title Dr.K.N. Rampal and another Vs. State Bank of India and others filed which is pending for disposal in the Hon’ble High Court of H.P. as of today. During pendency of RSA CMP No.2221/2016 filed by Sh. Jaspreet Singh s/o Sh. T.S. Bakshi under Order I Rule 8-A read with Order I Rule 10 CPC. 6. Court heard. Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of parties at length and Court also perused the entire record carefully. 7. Following points arise for determination: (1) Whether application filed under Order I Rule 8-A read with Order I Rule 10 CPC is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of application? (2) Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 8. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Sh. Jaspreet Singh that Sh. Jaspreet Singh be impleaded as co-party in RSA No.4326 of 2013 under Order I Rule 10 (2) Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. (2) Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 8. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Sh. Jaspreet Singh that Sh. Jaspreet Singh be impleaded as co-party in RSA No.4326 of 2013 under Order I Rule 10 (2) Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that a person is impleaded as co-party in civil suit under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC when it is proved that third person is a necessary party in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. Plaintiffs namely Dr. K.N. Rampal and Smt. Bhagwanti Rampal in civil suit No.82/1 of 2005/04 did not claim any relief against Sh. Jaspreet Singh. It is well settled law that plaintiff is a dominus litis in the suit. In view of the fact that Sh. Jaspreet Singh is not a necessary party in civil suit it is held that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to implead Sh. Jaspreet Singh as co-party in RSA No.4326/2013 under Order I Rule 10 (2) Code of Civil Procedure 1908 at this belated stage at the level of H.P. High Court. It is held that if Sh.Jaspreet Singh is impleaded as co-party in civil suit then same will be de novo trial of civil suit and de novo trial is not expedient in the ends of justice at this stage of case. See AIR 1997 SC 257 title Anokhe Lal v. Radhamohan Bansal. 9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Sh. Jaspreet Singh that Sh. Jaspreet Singh be impleaded as intervener under Order I Rule 8-A CPC is accepted for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Applicant namely Sh. Jaspreet Singh is interested in question of law which is directly and substantially in issue in present suit. Sh. Jaspreet Singh s/o Sh. T.S. Bakshi was one of director in M/s.Tej Straw Board Pvt. Limited which availed cash credit limit of Rs.3.5 lac from State Bank of India. Sh. Jaspreet Singh was one of codefendant No.7 in civil suit No. 13-N/1 of 1995/1987 title State Bank of India vs. M/s. Tej Straw Board Pvt. Limited which was decided on 25.03.1997 by learned District Judge Sirmaur. Learned District Judge Sirmaur passed decree for recovery of Rs.3,40,028.98 paise (Rs. Sh. Jaspreet Singh was one of codefendant No.7 in civil suit No. 13-N/1 of 1995/1987 title State Bank of India vs. M/s. Tej Straw Board Pvt. Limited which was decided on 25.03.1997 by learned District Judge Sirmaur. Learned District Judge Sirmaur passed decree for recovery of Rs.3,40,028.98 paise (Rs. Three lac forty thousand twenty eight and ninety eight paise) in favour of State Bank of India and against defendants No.1 to 9 jointly and severally. Learned District Judge Sirmaur further held that House No.3086 Sector 35D Chandigarh would remain charge till realization of decretal amount. 10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Dr. V. K. Rampal that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to implead Sh.Jaspreet Singh as intervener under Order I Rule 8-A Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is held that Sh. Jaspreet Singh is interested in question of law which is directly and substantially in issue in RSA No.4326/2013. It is held that it is necessary in the ends of justice to allow Sh.Jaspreet Singh to present his opinion and take part in proceedings of RSA because State Bank of India has also obtained decree for recovery of Rs.3,40,028.98 paise (Rs. Three lac forty thousand twenty eight and ninety eight paise) against Sh.Jaspreet Singh co-defendant No.7 jointly and severally and bank is under process of recovery from property of Sh. Jaspreet Singh. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is answered partly in Yes and partly in No. Point No.2 (Final Order) 11. In view of findings upon point No.1 above CMP No.2221/2016 is partly allowed. Prayer of the applicant to implead him as co-party under Order I Rule 10 (2) CPC in RSA is declined. Prayer of the applicant to implead him as intervener under Order I Rule 8-A CPC in RSA is allowed with limited rights to address oral submissions in RSA and file certified copies of decision of Courts and Tribunals. Observations made hereinabove will not effect merits of RSA No.4326 of 2013 in any manner and will be strictly confined for disposal of application filed under Order I Rule 8-A read with Order I Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure 1908. CMP No.2221/2016 is disposed of.