PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. GANESH FOUNDRY WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated January 23, 1986, whereby the application made under Order 1 Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called the Code), filed on behalf of defendant No. 3, was allowed and his name was struck off from the plaint.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit for the recovery of Rs. 6,61,124.21 against Ganesh Foundry Works and its partners. Dr. Manohar Lal Bansal is said to be one of its partners. Before filing the written statement, Dr. Manohar Lal Bansal moved the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code, on the allegations that he had been wrongly impleaded as a defendant just to harass him. He had already retired from the partnership. Therefore, he was not liable for the amount claimed in the suit. That application was contested on behalf of the plaintiff. However, the learned trial Court allowed the same and the name of defendant No. 3 was directed to be struck off from the plaint.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that admittedly when the loan was sanctioned in the year 1976, then, Dr. Manohar Lal Bansal was a partner in the said firm. In case he retired subsequently, prima facie, he was liable for the same, but in any case, this matter could not be decided at this stage when even the written statement was not filed by the defendant. According to the learned counsel, this will be pre-judging the whole case at the initial stage which will ultimately prejudice the plaintiff's suit. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant submitted that if under the law he was not liable because of his retirement from the partnership and the Bank accepted fresh guarantee, then, it will be unnecessary to allow him to continue as a defendant in the suit because it will be a sheer harassment to him.