SANTOSH GUPTA Vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s Bee Gee Corporation Private Limited, respondent no.3 and M/s Bee Gee Potteries Private Limited, respondent No.4 and their directors had obtained a loan from respondent No.1-Bank. Naseeb Chand Gupta stood as a guarantor. Respondent No.1-Bank has filed a suit for recovery. The defendants to the suit had lost as the decree was passed in favour of respondent No.1-Bank. Naseeb Chand Gupta, who stood as a guarantor, has expired. His legal representatives have filed Regular Second Appeal No. 1034 of 2008, which was decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and it was held that an opportunity of hearing ought to be granted to the legal representatives of Naseeb Chand Gupta, whose property was attached as he stood as a guarantor. As a result of the order dated 21.4.2009 (Annexure P2), passed by this Court in Regular Second Appeal, the Appellate Court is seized of the appeal which was filed by respondents No.3 and 4.

(2.) During the pendency of the appeal, an application under Order 1, Rule 10 read with section 151 CPC was filed by the legal representatives of Naseeb Chand Gupta that they should be transposed as appellants.

(3.) Pandit Vinod Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, has urged that the interest of the petitioners is in conflict with respondent No.1-State Bank of Patiala. Therefore, if both respondents No.3 and 4 are treated as respondents, he will not be able to project his plea that respondent No.1-Bank could not effect any recovery from Naseeb Chand Gupta. It has been further urged that an appeal has been abandoned by the appellants, therefore, the plea, which is contrary to the interest of respondent No.1-Bank, ought to be projected.