PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. SRI RISABH JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The question raised in this revision is whether the insurance company is neither a necessary nor a proper party and the court below has gone wrong in admitting impleadment of the insurance company. I do not find any error in the judgment and order of the court below. The argument which has been advanced that the suit against the insurance company will be barred and the revisionist is not claiming any relief against the insurance company are not relevant to ascertain whether the insurance company is a proper party or not. The bank has filed a suit for recovery of money alleging that the goods which were hypothecated with the bank have been removed by the defendants, while the defendants have set up the plea in defence that the goods were stolen and the bank was entitled to recover the same from the insurance company. All these are questions of fact which are to be adjudicated upon by the court after evidence is led in the case. At this stage, as the goods were insured with the insurance company, there is no reason for me to differ from the finding of the court below that the insurance company is a proper party.

(2.) Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the case of Mandir Mahadev Prithvinath v. Prakashanand [1981] ALJ 567, in support of his argument that the plaintiff could not be compelled to implead a particular person as a defendant in the suit filed by him. So far as the present case is concerned, the case cited is not applicable as I am of the view that the insurance company is a proper party for the purposes of this case and could be impleaded by the court below under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code. Counsel for the revisionist has also relied upon Harbans Lal v. Central Bank of India, AIR 1989 P & H 185, and argued that, in that case, it was held that a prospective vendee could not be impleaded as a party under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, and as, in matters of recovery of loan of the bank, prospective vendee could not claim on the basis of agreement to sell to be impleaded. On the same principles, the impleadment of the insurance company could not be ordered. I do not consider that the principle of law laid down in the case cited is applicable to the present case. The prospective vendee in that case bad no interest in respect of the title to the property and, therefore, it was neither a necessary nor a proper party in that case. I am of the view that, in the subject matter of the suit giving rise to this revision, the insurance company is a proper party and the contention raised by counsel for the revisionist does not find any support from the case cited so that the revisionist could not be allowed to implead the insurance company which is a proper party. Lastly, counsel for the revisionist prayed that he may be allowed time to implead the insurance company as a party to the suit as the time granted by the court below has expired. The request made is reasonable and he is allowed time till February 1, 1992, to implead the insurance company also as a party.

(3.) The revision is dismissed summarily but time till February 1, 1992, is allowed to the plaintiff-revisionist to move an application to implead the insurance company also as a defendant in the suit.