SUNDER SINGH Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred from the order dated 11/07/1991, passed by learned. III Additional District Judge, Dehradun, allowing thereby the review application filed by decree-holder, Punjab National Bank. Sri K. L. Grover has accepted notice for decree-holder respondent, Punjab National Bank. We have heard Sri R. K. Jain, learned counsel for appellant and Sri K. L. Grover.

(2.) The appellant has moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. and has prayed that Sri Manjeet Singh and Sri Vijai Pal Singh may also be impleaded as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the appeal, as they were impleaded as defendants in Original Suit No. 740 of 1985. It has been submitted that under an inadvertent mistake they have been left to be impleaded as respondents in the present appeal. We have heard both the parties on this application. As the limitation for filing the present appeal is up to 10/10/1991 as shown in the report of the Stamp Reporter, the aforesaid persons can be impleaded by the respondents without causing any prejudice to the decree-holder respondents. The application is, accordingly, allowed. The memo of appeal shall be accordingly corrected by impleading Manjeet Singh and Vijai Pal Singh as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively.

(3.) The facts, in brief giving rise to the present appeal, are that Manjeet Singh, respondent No. 2 took a loan of Rupees 1,85,000/- on 23/10/1980 from Punjab National Bank for purchasing of Tata Diesal vehicle. The appellant Sunder Singh and respondent No. 3 Vijai Pal Singh stood guarantor for payment of the amount of loan; on strength of their guarantee the aforesaid amount was given by Punjab National Bank. As the amount was not paid, Punjab National Bank filed Original Suit No. 740 of 1985 for, recovery of Rs. 2,38,200.85 p. together with pendente lite and future interest thereon from the defendants. Manjeet Singh, Principal debtor was arrayed as defendant No. 1 whereas Sunder Singh (appellant) and Vijai Pal Singh were, impleaded as defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in the above case. The relief claimed in the above suit is Material for appreciating the controversy between the parties which is being reproduced below :