PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 11.5.1993 passed by Sub Judge 2nd Class, Chandigarh dismissing the application of the petitioner- plaintiff filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity, the Code) seeking impleadment of legal representatives of one Shri Sukhchain Singh.

(2.) The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction against respondent- defendant No. 1 seeking direction that respondent-defendant No. 1 be restrained from making payment concerning special bearer bonds to any one else except the petitioner- plaintiff. During the course of proceedings, the trial Court ordered that Shri Ratesh Kumar and Miss Kavita may be impleaded as defendants as they were considered necessary parties because they have claimed to be the owners and in possession of the bearer bonds which is subject matter of the suit. After the impleadment of Shri Ratesh Kumar and Miss Kavita, it was revealed that they had purchased the disputed bearer bonds from one Shri Sukhchain Singh which is claimed by the petitioner-plaintiff to be its property. The special bearer bonds are worth Rs. 1,20,000/-. The petitioner-plaintiff had issued a bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. One lac in favour of Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation. The bonds were alleged to be stolen from the bank and a First Information Report No. 91 of 1986 was lodged at Police Station, Sector 17, Chandigarh on 27.2.1986. Shri Sukhchain Singh who is stated to have died, pledged the bearer bonds with the bank on the basis of which bank guarantee was given. It was in these circumstances that an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code was filed so that the matter in dispute is adjudicated properly, effectually and completely. The trial Court after recording these facts, dismissed the application on 11.5.1993 by recording the fol-lowing order-

(3.) I have perused the grounds of revision in which the challenge has been made to the impugned order principally on the ground that the trial Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction by refusing to implead the legal representatives of Sukhchain Singh. The only ground which constitutes the basis of impugned order dated 11.5.1993 is that once Sukhchain Singh was not a party to the suit himself, his legal representatives can also not be made party. A pirusal of Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code makes it obvious that the Court may at any stage of the suit order any other person to be added as plaintiff or defendant on the ground that their presence is felt necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute. The provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code read as under-