NEW BANK OF INDIA Vs. BHUPINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is by the plaintiff-bank whose application for impleading two persons, namely, Darshan Lal Gupta, the then manager of the bank and A. K. Jain of M/s. Dinesh Motors, as defendants has been rejected by the trial court.

(2.) THE plaintiff-bank is alleged to have advanced a certain loan to Ram Singh (since dead) who is being represented by his legal representatives, Bhupinder Singh, and Hari Chand. The advance was against hypothecation of a tractor. The defendant-borrowers denied the claim. The plaintiff-bank then examined Darshan Lal Gupta, the then manager of the bank as a witness. In the witness box, Darshan Lal Gupta completely exonerated the defendant-borrowers stating that no loan was advanced to them. He denied any knowledge of having advanced any loan to the defendant-respondents for purchase of tractor or otherwise. The witness was then declared hostile. A. K. Jain, proprietor of M/s. Dinesh Motors, was also examined. He deposed to have delivered the tractor to the manager, Darshan Lal Gupta. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff-petitioner moved an application for impleading these two persons as defendants. In my opinion, the trial court committed an error in not allowing Darshan Lal Gupta to be added as a party to the suit. According to the plaintiff-bank, the loan was advanced and Darshan Lal Gupta was the manager of the bank at the relevant time. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff-bank as well could sue Darshan Lal Gupta in the alternative for recovery of the amount which is allegedly not advanced to the defendant-respondents. In this view of the matter, Darshan Lal Gupta, in my opinion, is a necessary party to the suit and it is directed that he be impleaded as a respondent with a view to give finality to the litigation.

(3.) SO far as A. K. Jain is concerned, I do not see any privity between the plaintiff-bank and A. K. Jain, who has delivered the tractor against price. Whether that tractor is in the possession of the plaintiff or respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (borrowers) is not the concern of Shri Jain. On the plaintiff's own showing that the tractor has been hypothecated with the bank, so far as the seller, i. e. , A. K. Jain of M/s. Dinesh Motors is concerned, he is exonerated of all liability. The part of order refusing to implead A. K. Jain must be upheld.