BHARVIN S PATEL Vs. DENA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the outset before deciding the main petition i.e. Special Civil Application No.4754 of 2011, we deem fit to take up Civil Application No.7578 of 2011, which is an application preferred by the owner of the property (borrower) for being impleaded as a party respondent in the main petition i.e. Special Civil Application No.4754 of 2011. The learned advocate Mr.Mayursinh B. Gohil appearing for the applicant of Civil Application No.7578 of 2011, submitted that the applicant is a necessary and proper party for better adjudication of the controversy in question. He submitted that as the applicant who is one of the co-owners of the property has executed an agreement to sell in favour of respondent No.3 of the main petition, he has direct interest so far as the subject matter of the main petition is concerned.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned advocate Mr.Mayursinh B. Gohil and the learned advocate Mr.R.D. Dave appearing for the petitioner and having gone through the materials on record, we are of the view that the presence of applicant herein would be necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case for better adjudication of the main petition. In the result, the application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be impleaded as respondent No.4 in the main petition. Necessary amendment be carried out forthwith.

(3.) BY way of this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated July 07, 2010 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in Appeal No.156 of 2010 and in this context, the following reliefs have been prayed for in this petition :