ORDER 1. These petitioners are filed by the M.P. State Cooperative Bank Mydt., Bhopal (also known as 'Apex Bank') being aggrieved of order dated 6.5.2024 passed in First Appeal No.2/2024, F.A. No.7/2024, F.A. No.4/2024 and F.A. No.6/2024 respectively, by the learned M.P. State Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal rejecting an application under Order 1 rule 10 of CPC filed by the petitioner apex Bank for impleadment in the matter of First Appeal between the District Central Cooperative Bank, Shivpuri and the employees of the District Central Cooperative Bank on the pretext that it is the Apex Bank which is the federal organization, therefore, its impleaded is must. 2. It is submitted that since loan amount is given to by the apex Bank to the District Cooperative Central Banks and in turn it was embezzled by the non cadre employees of the District Central Cooperative Bank and a dispute was pending and a decree was passed in favour of the District Cooperative Bank, first appeal at the instance of the employees is pending before the Cooperative Tribunal, therefore, petitioner being the apex Society moved an application under Order 1 rule 10 of CPC for impleadment as ultimately it is their money which is at stake. 3. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and Others, (2005) 6 SCC 733 , wherein drawing attention of this Court to para 7 and 13. It is submitted that Supreme Court has noted that - "7. In our view, a bare reading of this provision, namely, second part of Order 1 rule 10 sub-rule (2) CPC would clearly show that the necessary parties in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale are the parties to the contract or if they are dead, their legal representatives as also a person who had purchased the contracted property from the vendor. In equity as well as in law, the contract constitutes rights and also regulates the liabilities of the parties. A purchaser is a necessary party as he would be affected if he had purchased with notice of the contract, but a person who claims adversely to the claim of a vendor is, however, not a necessary party. From the above, it is now clear that two tests are to be satisfied for determining the question who is a necessary party. From the above, it is now clear that two tests are to be satisfied for determining the question who is a necessary party. Tests are - (1) there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings; (2) no effective decree can be passed in the absence of such party." 4. In para 13, it is noted that - "13. From the aforesaid discussion, it is pellucid that necessary parties are those persons in whose absence no decree can be passed by the Court or that there must be a right to some relief against some party in respect of the controversy involved in the proceedings and proper parties are those whose presence before the Court would be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit although no relief in the suit was claimed against such person." 5. Thus, it is submitted that Apex Bank is the necessary party. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the record. Two things emerge that apex Bank i.e the petitioner is the prime lender. They extend credit facilities to the District Cooperative Central Banks to whom disbursement takes place in favour of different beneficiaries. Shri Suyash Mohan Guru admits that apex Bank has control over the cadre employees of the District Central Cooperative Banks and not on other employees which will fall in the category of non cadre employees i.e. the employees of the District Central Cooperative Bank. 7. Thus, it is evident that, firstly, the dispute is between the District Central Cooperative Bank and the employees, who are non cadre employees. Admittedly, petitioner has no administrative control over these employees as admitted by Shri Suyash Mohan Guru. 8. Thus, when they have no administrative control over the appellants before the learned Cooperative Tribunal and also taking this fact into consideration that even if their amount has been embezzled by individual employees, yet Apex Bank has authority and powers to recover their amounts or suitably adjust from the future borrowings to be made by the District Central Cooperative Bank and, the ratio of the judgment in the case of Kasturi (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. 9. 9. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that Tribunal has rightly held that the petitioner is neither a necessary party nor a proper party and, when tested, then impugned order cannot be faulted with, therefore, petitions fail and are dismissed.