PARUL AGGARWAL Vs. VARUN KUMAR MAHAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dtd. 2/2/2026 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Gurdaspur vide which an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Sec. 151 CPC (Annexure P-5) moved by defendants-applicants for impleading Rubina wife of one Rajat Mahajan as a defendant has been dismissed.

(2.) Mr. Vishal Tartyal, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent and filed his Power of Attorney. The same is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place.

(3.) Case of the petitioners/defendants is that they have categorically pleaded that they never entered into any agreement of sale dtd. 8/1/2016 with the plaintiff/respondent, as alleged in the suit and the same is a forged and fabricated document which has been illegally and intentionally prepared by the plaintiff in active connivance with the scribe and attesting witnesses, including Rajat Mahajan, one of the said witnesses. All the business concerns of the defendants and their family members went through huge loss in the year 2015 and the same were closed and they came under heavy debt. To wriggle out from the aforesaid financial crisis, their father-in-law, namely Satish Kumar Aggarwal, approached Rajat Mahajan and his father Parshotam Lal for financial help in the month of December 2015. Rajat Mahajan told him that his close friend Varun Mahajan (Plaintiff) runs a jewellery shop at Main Bazaar, Gurdaspur and he himself, alongwith him, also lends money to different persons @ 2% interest after securing blank signed cheques and blank signed stamp papers. Their father-in-law took a loan of Rs.20.00 lacs on 1% interest from the plaintiff, who took the signatures of defendants on blank stamp papers and kept them in his custody as a security of loan. It is further submitted that due to financial crisis, Satish Kumar Aggarwal could not repay the said loan amount to Varun Mahajan and, as such, Rajat Mahajan and Varun Mahajan put pressure upon him to pay back the money with interest and they also suggested to him that if he was unable to pay, then in order to avoid future interest, he should sell his share in a shop situated at G.T. Road, Mandi Gurdaspur, which is near the shop of Rajat Mahajan and his share was 0/1/75 marlas in the abovementioned shop. Keeping in view the prevailing financial situation, their father-in-law agreed to sell his share in the shop situated at G.T. Road Mandi, Gurdaspur to Rubina, wife of Rajat Mahajan and the value of the said shop was settled as Rs.43.00 lakhs and, in continuation of the said relations, Satish Kumar Aggarwal agreed to adjust the loan amount of Rs.20.00 lacs out of the sale consideration alongwith settled interest amounting to Rs.3,50,000.00 and the total being Rs.23,50,000.00 was adjusted towards the said dues of the loan amount and the rest of the sale consideration was agreed to be paid to their father-in-law, out of which Rs.1,50,000.00 was paid in cash to him on 13/11/2017 and the rest of the amount of Rs.18.00 lacs was agreed to be paid through cheques, as mentioned in the sale deed from Rubina, w/o Rajat Mahajan, in whose favour the said sale deed was executed at the instance of the plaintiff. Plaintiff Varun Mahajan also undertook that he would destroy the blank signed stamp papers obtained from Satish Kumar Aggarwal relating to his daughters-in-law/defendants, on the day of the execution and registration of the sale deed. As agreed between the parties, sale deed of the said shop of Satish Kumar was executed and registered on 15-112017 for an amount of Rs.19,50,000.00, out of which Rs.1,50,000.00 was already given in cash and the rest of the amount of Rs.18.00 lacs was to be paid to Satish Kumar Aggarwal through cheques bearing numbers 89485 dtd. 15/11/2017, 89486 dtd. 20/11/2017, 89487 dtd. 25/11/2017, 89488 dtd. 30/11/2017, 89489 dtd. 5/12/2017 and 89490 dated 10-122017 for Rs.3.00 lacs each, drawn on IDBI Bank, Branch Gurdaspur, as mentioned in the sale deed. It is further submitted that while executing the said sale deed on 15/11/2017, Satish Kumar Aggarwal put his thumb impression as vendor due to the reason that in the month of May 2017, he had suffered an injury on his right arm in an accident, which was not in moving condition and since then, he has been unable to sign with his right hand and was therefore used to append his thumb impression as and when required. After the execution of the aforesaid sale deed dated 1511-2017, the father-in-law of the defendants asked Varun Mahajan and Rajat Mahajan to deposit the said cheques in the account of his bank, but they told the Manager of the Punjab Gramin Bank, Jail Road, Gurdaspur, is well known to them and he needs some more accounts and so his account would be opened in that bank. Again relying upon the plaintiff and Rajat Mahajan, their father-in-law went alongwith them to Punjab Gramin Bank, Jail Road, Gurdaspur for opening an account on 23/11/2017 and the father-in-law of the defendants put his LTI on the bank forms for opening the account and, after completing the required formalities, Varun Mahajan and Rajat Mahajan assured him that the said cheques would be deposited in his account after the account was opened, as Varun Mahajan has good relations in the said bank. No passbook or any cheque book was given to the father-in-law of the defendants either by the bank or by plaintiff Varun Mahajan, at whose instance the said account was opened. Relying upon them, Satish Kumar Aggarwal, came back. Thereafter, Satish Kumar Aggarwal, made a request to Rajat Mahajan that the said blank signed stamp papers be returned to him or destroyed as promised, but he told that he has already destroyed the same and he also asked Rajat Mahajan to deposit the said cheques in his account as mentioned in the sale deed, but they stated that he should not worry and that the same would be deposited in his account. However, Rubina Mahajan, Rajat Mahajan and Varun Mahajan have not deposited the balance sale consideration of the said sale deed dtd. 15/11/2017 in the account of Satish Kumar Aggarwal till now. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, Rubina, wife of Rajat Mahajan, attesting witness of the agreement in question, is a necessary and proper party to the present suit. The rights and interests of the proposed party are directly involved in the controversy raised in the present suit and no effective and complete adjudication can be made in her absence. If Rubina, wife of Rajat Mahajan, is not impleaded as a party, there is every likelihood of multiplicity of proceedings, which would defeat the ends of justice. The proposed party is a necessary and proper party and, in her absence, the real issues involved in the present suit cannot be adjudicated effectively and properly. Prayer has been made to allow the application and to implead her.