STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S HELIOS DIAGNOSTICS & HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are a bank and its authorised officer who complain, in particular, of an order allowing an amendment and the further continuation of the suit against the petitioners.

(2.) According to the petitioners, certain credit facilities were extended by the bank to the opposite party nos.1 and 2 against the mortgage of an immovable property. The petitioners say that the opposite party no.2, the first defendant in the suit, is undisputedly the owner of the property. The opposite party no.1, the plaintiff in the suit, has impleaded even the bank while seeking a declaration that the opposite party no.1 is the tenant under the opposite party no.2 and an injunction such that the possession of the opposite party no.1 in respect of such premises is not disturbed by either the owner or the bank.

(3.) On a previous appeal against the order passed on a petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, a Division Bench of this court observed that the plaint relating to a suit could not be rejected on a piecemeal basis and either the plaint had to be rejected as a whole or not at all.