USHA MUNJAL Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision has been preferred by the abovenamed petitioners whose intervention petition under Order I rule 10 C. P. C. was rejected by the impugned order in the court of Subordinate judge, I, Hazaribagh.

(2.) THE admitted position remains that the plaintiff-O. P. No. 1 filed the abovemention suit against the Opposite parties no. 2 to 4 for realisation of the outstanding dues on the basis of mortgage by deposit of title deed in taking loan by the Opposite party nos. 2 and 3. While the suit was pending then this intervenor petition was filed on the ground that the Opposite party nos. 2 and 3 had entered into an agreement of sale of a part of the property involved in the present suit in favour of the petitioner and took the whole amount of consideration money and put them in possession and the surreptitiously the Opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are not contesting the suit and going to give an ex parte decree in favour of the plaintiff-Opposite party no. 1 and as such they wanted to implead as defendants in the suit and contest the suit.

(3.) THE suit was a Mortgage suit on the basis of the Mortgage contract being arrived at between the o. P No. 1 on one side and O. P. Nos. 2 and 4 on the other side, and on such mortgage suit the learned court below has rightly held that the petitioners can have no say in the contractual agreement between the parties to the suit.