L PRABHAKARA PRABHU Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the revision petitions were heard together, as they arise out of a common order.

(2.) The 4th defendant in O.S. No. 140 of 1988, on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam has preferred these revisions against the common order dated 6-7-1991 in I. A. Nos. 5603 and 5404 of 1990 dated 14-9-1990 arising out of the said suit. By the impugned order, the learned Sub Judge dismissed the applications and rejected the prayer of the petitioner to implead the counter-petitioner, who later died during the pendency of the proceeding, as third party under Order 8A, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming that he is entitled to contribution from or indemnity against the third party. The legal representatives of the deceased counter-petitioner have been brought on record as respondents 8 to 10 in these revisions.

(3.) The plaintiff (first respondent herein) filed the suit against the petitioner and respondents 2 to 7 (who were defendants 1 to 7) for recovery of about Rs. 6,00,000/-. The said amount was advanced by Lakshmi Commercial Bank to the first defendant. It merged with the plaintiff-Bank subsequently. The petitioner/4th defendant executed an equitable mortgage of his properties and a guarantee agreement standing as security for the loan. The petitioner at first denied the execution of the equitable mortgage and the deed of guarantee in his written statement But, later on person verification of the documents filed by the plaintiff in the Court below he having found that he had actually signed the deed of guarantee in respect of the loan advanced to the first defendant filed an additional written statement admitting the fact. The counter-petitioner (late Sri B.S. Kamath) was working as a Chartered Accountant and was a friend of the petitioner. It is contended that on his request the petition signed some documents in the bank. At that time, the counter-petitioner had orally agreed to contribute or indemnify against his liability.