MEHAR CHAND Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision is directed against an order of the learned Additional District Judge (Bank Cases), Jammu dated 29th of September, 2010 in a civil suit titled Central Bank of India v. Rattan Wires and Ors. in terms of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC for short), whereby the application for impleadment of Mehar Chand, Petitioner herein, came to be rejected, therefore, he has moved this Court for setting aside the same.

(2.) To appreciate the controversy, it will be apt to give brief resume of facts of the case. A suit for recovery of money came to be filed by the Plaintiff-Bank (hereinafter referred to as Respondent 1) before the learned Additional District Judge (Bank Cases) Jammu against Defendant ? Rattan Lal (hereinafter referred to as Respondent 2). During the pendency of civil suit, Respondent 1 filed an application for appointment of Receiver under Order 38 Rule 5 read with Order 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which constrained the Petitioner to file an application for impleadment. It is that application which came to be rejected vide the impugned order. That is why the present Civil Revision has been preferred in this Court.

(3.) Precisely, the case of the Petitioner is that he is in possession of the suit/mortgaged property and in case application for appointment of receiver is allowed that will prejudice the rights of the Petitioner because that will amount to his dispossession. The Plaintiff-Respondent contested the motion which came to be rejected on the ground that in a suit for recovery of money question of title cannot be gone into.