SUNDARDAS HARBHAGWANDAS Vs. INDIAN BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these petitions, the petitioner is the same which is a registered firm of bankers. The facts are similar in all these petitions and the question that arises for determination is also the same. A hundi was executed by a merchant in favour of one or other of the Banks who are respondents in these petitions. The hundi was discounted by the petitioner-2nd defendant. When the hundi became payable, neither the executant of the hundi nor the petitioner paid the amount due to the concerned banks. The banks files suits against the maker of the hundi as well as the petitioner which discounted the hundi. The petitioner filed petitions for impleading certain respondents as defendants to the suit, on the ground that they had executed letters of guarantee undertaking to be liable regarding the promissory notes and other transactions that may be entered into by the petitioner. The courts below dismissed the petitions declining to implead the respondents as defendants to the suit. Hence these revision petitions.

(2.) THE allegations made in the petition is that the petitioner discounted the hundi with the bank, and, as the executant of the hundi defaulted to pay the amount under the hundi, the plaintiffs banks filed suits for recovery of the amount.

(3.) THE petitioner stated that the respondents, who are sought to be impleaded as defendants to the suit, have executed letters of guarantee in favour of the petitioner, whereby they made themselves liable for payment of loans on promissory notes, hundies etc. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the respondents are liable for the suit claim. It is also the case of the petitioner that one of the respondents has created an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds in respect of the loan. In the circumstances, the petitioner pleaded that the respondents should be impleaded as defendants to the suit.