S C SONI Vs. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of the above mentioned C.R. No. 654 of 1999 and S.A.O. No. 20 of 1999, as both arise out of the same proceedings between the parties. Civil Revision No. 654 of 1999 has been filed against the order dated 23.11.1998 passed by the District Judge, allowing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff-Bank, while S.A.O. No. 20 of 1999 has been filed against the order dated 2.12.1998 passed by the District Judge, remanding the case to the trial Court for disposal according to law.

(2.) The facts which are relevant for the decision of these two cases are that Punjab and Sind Bank (plaintiff) had filed a suit on 19.8.1992 for the recovery of Rs. 3,31,750/- against three defendants, namely, 1. Amarjeet Singh, 2. Balbir Singh and 3. Smt. Satwant Kaur. The said suit of the bank was decreed by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, making them liable jointly and severally vide judgment and decree dated 10.2.1995, for the recovery of Rs. 3,31,750/- alongwith pendente-lite and future interest on the decretal amount at the rate of 12.5% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of realisation of the decretal amount. Dis-satisfied with the said judgment and decree dated 10.2.1995, the plaintiff-Bank filed an appeal before the District Judge, claiming pendente-lite and future interest on the decretal amount at the rate of 17.5% per annum with quarterly rests.

(3.) During the pendency of the aforesaid appeal before the District Judge, the plaintiff-Bank filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. dated 12.6.1995, alleging therein that the plaintiff-Bank had filed the suit against the defendants and that defendant No. 1, Amarjit Singh, was the loanee while defendants No. 2 and 3, namely, Balbir Singh and Smt. Satwant Kaur were the guarantors. It was further alleged that the said loan was also given under the continuing guarantee of S.C. Soni, who had also executed a deed of guarantee in favour of the plaintiff-Bank on 9.8.1984. it was further alleged that the name of S.C. Soni as a guarantor was mentioned in Para 4 of the plaint but due to inadvertent mistake, he was not impleaded as a defendant at the time of the filing of the suit. It was alleged that he was liable to pay the suit amount as per the guarantee given by him and as such he was liable to be impleaded as a defendant. It was alleged that the plaintiff- bank wanted to amend the plaint by impleading S.C. Soni as defendant No. 4. It was further alleged that the said amendment was very material for the decision of the case and would not change the nature of the suit. The said application was contested by the defendants, by filing written reply dated 3.10.1997, controverting the allegations contained in the application and taking various preliminary objections, including the plea of limitation etc. After hearing both sides, the learned District Judge (before whom the appeal was pending), vide order dated 23.11.1998, allowed the said application of the plaintiff- bank under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. and allowed the plaintiff-bank to implead S.C. Soni as defendant No. 4 subject to payment of costs and the case was adjourned to 30.11.1998 for payment of costs. On 30.11.1998, the learned counsel appearing for the defendants declined to accept the costs and accordingly the case was adjourned to 2.12.1998 for filing amended plaint. On 2.12.1998, the amended plaint was filed impleading S.C. Soni as defendant No. 4. After considering that a new defendant had been impleaded which would necessitate a fresh trial of the suit, the learned District Judge vide order dated 2.12.1998 set-aside the judgment and decree dated 10.2.1995 passed by the trial Court and remanded the suit to the trial Court for decision afresh in accordance with law. Aggrieved against the order dated 23.11.1998 (allowing the plaintiff-bank to amend the plaint), S.C. Soni (added defendant) filed C.R. No. 654 of 1999, while against the order dated 2.12.1998, remanding the case to the trial Court, S.C. Soni (added defendant) filed S.A.O. No. 20 of 1999.