ORDER : 1. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner-defendant in S.C.No.15434/2012 filed by the respondent-plaintiff, whereby the court below decreed the suit in favour of the respondent against the petitioner directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.90,082/-to the respondent with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of the suit till the payment of the entire amount. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to by their respective ranks in the suit before the court below. 3. The various contentions are urged by the plaintiff in the suit are as under:- “02. The brief facts of the plaintiff’s case as under:- Plaintiff is the proprietor of M/s. Srinivas Telecom, which is dealing with sales and serviced of mobile and currencies. When defendant has offered the plaintiff for opening current account, plaintiff accepted the same and opened the current account with the defendant, thereafter plaintiff has entered into Merchant establishment agreement, as per the said agreement machine has been installed in the plaintiff shop. As per the terms of the agreement plaintiff’s are collecting the payment along with the necessary documents for process of the credit and debit to the plaintiff account. These beings the facts, on 29.03.2010, one Mr.Muniraju has purchased Blackberry Handset worth Rs.63,140-00 from plaintiff shop by using ICICI Bank Credit card. At the time of purchasing, the said Muniraju has handed over Xerox copy of the passport as address proof and he signed on the charge slip. At that time as the transaction was valid and defendant bank deposited the entire amount to plaintiff’s account. But later on suddenly defendant has withdrawn the said amount of Rs.63,000/-from the plaintiff account. After six months from the transaction, on 30.09.2010 defendant gave to letter to the plaintiff regarding the dispute with respect to above said transactions without any reasons mentioned in the letter. When defendant has requested the plaintiff to produce the documents relating to the transaction with the Muniraju, plaintiff has hand over the original charge slip and other documents. Further that on 21.03.2011 plaintiff has wrote a letter to defendant to pay the 63,000-00 to plaintiff’s account. When defendant has requested the plaintiff to produce the documents relating to the transaction with the Muniraju, plaintiff has hand over the original charge slip and other documents. Further that on 21.03.2011 plaintiff has wrote a letter to defendant to pay the 63,000-00 to plaintiff’s account. But till now defendant has not done so, but when plaintiff has sent a email to defendant for refunding of the amount, defendant has replied to the same stating that they tried in good faith, but they have not received any response from the card issuing bank which shows that defendant has admitted the transactions and responsible for the refund.” 4. The defendant entered appearance and contested the suit by filing his writing statement denying the various allegations and claim made by the plaintiff. The defence urged on behalf of the defendant has been extracted in paragraphs 4 to 10 of the impugned judgment and order. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the court below formulated the following three points for consideration:- “1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, defendant has withdrawn amount of Rs.63,000-00 from his account without any valid reason? 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the amount as claimed? 3. What order or decree?” 6. On behalf of the plaintiff, one witness was examined as PW-1 and documentary evidence as Exs.P1 to P9 were got marked. On behalf of the defendant, two witnesses were examined as DWs 1 and 2 and Exs.D1 to D6 were got marked. 7. At the outset, it is necessary to state that in paragraph-3 of the written statement, the defendant took up a specific contention that on 29.03.2010, a customer of the plaintiff Mr.Muniraju purchased a Mobile Handset from the plaintiff’s shop by paying an amount of Rs.63,000/-by swiping his card on ED machine of the defendant-Bank which was available at the plaintiff’s shop premises. It was contended on behalf of the defendant that the card transaction involving participation not only of the defendant – HDFC Bank but also customer/card holder Muniraju as well as the ICICI Bank which was the Bank which issued the credit card. Subsequently, the said Muniraju submitted a Charge Dispute Form to his card issuing bank i.e., ICICI Bank claiming illegal debit of a sum of Rs.63,000/-from his credit card and further seeking refund of the same. Subsequently, the said Muniraju submitted a Charge Dispute Form to his card issuing bank i.e., ICICI Bank claiming illegal debit of a sum of Rs.63,000/-from his credit card and further seeking refund of the same. On request of the ICICI Bank, the defendant-HDFC Bank started verifying the validity of the alleged transaction and eventually since the satisfactory results were not found, the said sum of Rs.63,000/-was debited by the defendant-Bank by reversing the transaction. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the defendant specifically contended that since both Muniraju as well as the ICICI Bank were parties to the transaction, they were both proper and necessary parties to the suit and the suit without impleading either of the said Muniraju or ICICI bank, was bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties and that the same was liable to the dismissed on this ground alone. 9. It is relevant to state that despite these specific pleadings in paragraph-3 of the written statement of the defendant to the effect that out of the four parties involved in the suit transaction, two parties viz., Muniraju as well as ICICI Bank were not impleaded as parties, the suit was bad for nonjoinder of necessary and proper parties, the court below did not frame necessary and relevant issues with regard to the maintainability of the suit qua non-joinder of the necessary parties. Without framing the said necessary and relevant issue, which arises from the pleadings of the parties, the court below proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree, decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 11. The order sheet would indicate that on 09.12.2019, this Court noted the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the fact that the respondent’s counsel was absent. However, in order to give a chance to the respondent, the matter was directed to be re-listed on 18.12.2019. On that day also, counsel for the respondent remained absent and as a last chance, the matter was once again listed on 19.12.2019 at 2.30 p.m. Even today, counsel for the petitioner is present and counsel for the respondent remained absent and as such, I have no option but to take up the matter for disposal on merits. 12. On that day also, counsel for the respondent remained absent and as a last chance, the matter was once again listed on 19.12.2019 at 2.30 p.m. Even today, counsel for the petitioner is present and counsel for the respondent remained absent and as such, I have no option but to take up the matter for disposal on merits. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial court committed an error in not framing necessary issue with regard to the non-joinder of the aforesaid necessary parties i.e., Muniraju as well as ICICI Bank who were also the parties to the suit transaction, out of which, the claim of the plaintiff arose. It is therefore contended that in the absence of the said necessary and proper parties, which was pleaded by the defendant at the earliest point of time in paragraph-3 of its written statement, the suit was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 13. I find considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In this context, it is relevant to extract paragraph-3 of the written statement of the defendant-HDFC Bank, which reads as under:- “3. It is submitted that on 29.03.2010 a customer of plaintiff Mr. Muniraju purchased a mobile hand set from his shop paying its Price Rs.63,000/-by swiping his Card on EDC machine of the Defendant Bank available at Shop Premises. The Card Transaction involved participation of not only the Defendant Bank but also the customer/cardholder Mr.Muniraju and Card Issuing Bank ICICI Bank too. Subsequently, Mr. Muniraju submitted the Charge Dispute Form to his Card issuing Bank i.e., ICICI Bank claiming illegal debit of sum Rs.63,000/-from the his Card Account and further seeking refund of the same. ON request of ICICI Bank, the Defendant started verifying the validity of alleged transaction and eventually not finding satisfactory results, the said sum was debited from the Account of Plaintiff. In the circumstances, Mr. Muniraju is Proper Party to the Suit and the Card issuing ICICI Bank is a Necessary Party, without pleading ICICI Bank as Party to the Suit, the suit cannot to adjudicated successfully. Hence, the Suit is bad for non-joinder of Parties and liable to be dismissed at preliminary stage itself in the interest of Justice and equity.” 14. Muniraju is Proper Party to the Suit and the Card issuing ICICI Bank is a Necessary Party, without pleading ICICI Bank as Party to the Suit, the suit cannot to adjudicated successfully. Hence, the Suit is bad for non-joinder of Parties and liable to be dismissed at preliminary stage itself in the interest of Justice and equity.” 14. A perusal of the aforesaid written statement filed by the defendant will clearly indicate that in the light of the undisputed fact that the suit transaction comprises of four parties i.e., M/s.Srinivas Telecom (plaintiff), HDFC Bank (defendant), Muniraju (customer) and ICICI Bank (card issuing Bank), the alleged customer Muniraju and the ICICI Bank which issued the credit card which was allegedly misused in relation to the suit transaction were clearly both necessary and proper parties to the suit. 15. It is well settled that a ‘proper party’ is one, whose presence is necessary for adjudication of the issues in controversy between the parties. It is equally well settled that a ‘necessary party’ is one, in whose absence, an effective decree cannot be passed in a suit. In the instant case, having regard to the four persons involved in the suit transaction arising out of the alleged misuse of the credit card, the alleged customer Muniraju and the card issuing Bank ICICI are definitely both proper and necessary parties to the suit. In the absence of the impleadment of Muniraju and ICICI Bank coupled with the specific pleading put forth in paragraph-3 of the written statement, the trial court clearly committed an error in not framing any issue with regard to non-joinder of necessary and proper parties and proceeding with the suit in their absence. 16. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that the court below acted illegally and material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in not framing an issue with regard to the nonjoinder of necessary parties and thereafter, proceed with the suit. It is therefore necessary that the matter is to be remitted back to the trial court by directing the court below to frame necessary issue with regard to the non-joinder of necessary and proper parties and thereafter proceed with the suit by affording an equal opportunity to all the parties. 17. It is therefore necessary that the matter is to be remitted back to the trial court by directing the court below to frame necessary issue with regard to the non-joinder of necessary and proper parties and thereafter proceed with the suit by affording an equal opportunity to all the parties. 17. A perusal of the impugned judgment and decree will also indicate that though issue No.1 relating to the alleged liability of the defendant towards the plaintiff in a sum of Rs.63,000/-was answered in the ‘affirmative’, the court below has directed the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.90,082/-to the plaintiff without any pleading, issue or evidence in this regard. Even this portion of the trial court’s judgment in quantifying the amount payable to the plaintiff as Rs.90,082/-is factually incorrect and the same is also liable to be set aside. 18. So also, the court below committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the defendant was liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% from the date of suit till the payment of the entire amount. It is needless to state that the said rate of interest of 18% is completely contrary to the provisions contained in Section 34 of CPC and the same is also liable to be set aside. 19. In the result, I pass the following order:- (i) This revision petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 19.12.2013 passed by the learned XVII Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore, in S.C.No.15434/2012 is hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted to the trial court to frame necessary/appropriate issues with regard to the proper and necessary parties as pleaded by the defendant in paragraph-3 of the written statement. (iv) All parties are at liberty to adduce such further oral and documentary evidence on their respective sides. (v) The observations and findings recorded by the court below in the impugned judgment and order including the finding with regard to the quantum of liability and the rate of interest are hereby set aside. (vi) All contentions of both sides on merits are hereby left open. (vii) The court below is directed to dispose of the suit afresh in accordance with law.