SANDANA FLORALS Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in a suit for recovery of money, aggrieved by the dismissal of her Application for impleading the Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC) has come up by way of this revision petition.

(2.) I have heard Mrs.Raj Genevive Veena, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Mr.C.M.Mohanasundaram, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr.K.Subramanian, learned counsel for second respondent I have also gone through the documents and decisions relied on by the learned counsel on either side.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the suit has been filed by the first respondent Bank as an under chapter suit under Order XXXVII of CPC. The respondent filed an Application seeking leave to defend the suit which was allowed on 26/4/2017 and thereafter, the defendant has filed her written statement along with a counter claim. After trial commenced, the defendant has taken out an Application under IA.No.10 of 2025 seeking to implead KVIC as the 2nd defendant under Order I Rule 10 of CPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the plaintiff has denied the grant of subsidy and therefore it has become necessary to implead KVIC as a party defendant to the said suit, to establish the receipt of subsidy by the plaintiff's Bank.