SIDDHARTH KUMAR MODI Vs. JAGJIT SINGH BINDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Or.1, R.10 read with Section 151 of the Civil P. C. on behalf of Canara Bank, Nehru Place, New Delhi seeking leave to be impleaded as defendant in the present suit. The plaintiffs and the defendant entered into partnership in terms of a deed dated 28th Oct. 1976/5th Nov. 1977 to carry on business under the name and style of "Tantra". It appears that disputes arose between the plainiiffs and the defendant. The plaintiffs therefore, filed the present suit for dissolution of the partnership and rendition of accounts.

(2.) The applicant-bank by this application alleges that the partnership firm M/s. Tantra acting through its partners i.e. the plaintiffs and the defendant approached the applicant for grant of loan facilities to finance certain packing credit commitments mentioned in the loan documents, the advance was in the nature of Cash Credit limit of Rupees 1,50,000.00 and Bills Discounting Facility up to Rs. 1,50,000.00 that the plaintiffs and the defendant are engaged in the business of fabrication and export of garments, that the parties to the suit are jointly and severally liable to the applicant. Para 5 of the application details the various documents alleged to have been executed by the parties to this suit. It is alleged that a sum of Rupees 1,81,822.70 became due from the plaintiffs and the defendant to the applicant which they failed to pay and therefore, the applicant was compelled to file a suit for recovery against them being Suit No. 615 of 1980 Canara Bank v. M/s. Tantra and others pending in this Court. It appears that the plaintiffs and the defendant denied their liability to the applicant on various grounds. It is not necessary to reproduce the defence of that suit. The applicant alleges that the present suit is mala fide and has been filed with a view to defraud and defeat the applicant's legitimate claim, that the applicant is a secured creditor and it has a first charge on the goods of the partnership firm, that the bank is vitally interested in the result of the suit, that its presence is necessary to safeguard its interest. On these allegations the applicant has prayed that it be added as a defendant and the suit be stayed.

(3.) The application is contested by the plaintiffs and the defendant. It has been submitted that the applicant Canara Bank is not entitled to be impleaded as a party in the suit for dissolution and rendition of accounts and the suit is not liable to be stayed. It is further alleged that the rights of the applicant if any are entirely independent of the present suit.