GHEETIN SINGH Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision is directed against order dated 05 -10 -2007 of Learned Additional District Judge (Bank Cases), Jammu, rejecting petitioners application seeking his impleadment as party defendant to a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.51,95,633/ - filed by Canara Bank against Mr. K.K. Kohli and Smt. Shanti Devi.

(2.) THE Petitioner says in this revision petition that Mr. K.K. Kohli had obtained loan from Canara Bank and in lieu of that had mortgaged a property comprising of land and house at Gandhinagar, Jammu. Without disclosing the factum of having mortgaged the property, Mr. K.K.Kohli had executed a Power of Attorney and an Agreement to sell with him after receiving an amount of Rs.49 lacs. The petitioner is stated to have executed a Sale Deed of the house in question in favour of one Madan Mohan Bhargav. According to the petitioner, after executing the Power of Attorney and the Agreement to Sell, Mr. K.K. Kohli, had started maneuvering the proceedings in the suit so that an ex -parte decree was passed against him. Aggrieved by the conduct of Mr. Kohli, petitioner is stated to have lodged F.I.R no. 182 of 2007 with Police Station Gandhinagar, Jammu. In order to protect his rights in the house stated to have been purchased by him from Mr. K.K. Kohli, the petitioner seeks his impleadment as a party defendant to the Canara Banks suit.

(3.) MR . Sethi, appearing for the petitioner, refers to Amit Kumar Shah and another v. Farida Khatoon reported as AIR 2005, 2209 to urge that the trial Court had erred in not applying the principle of LIS PENDENS while considering petitioners impleadment as party defendant. He further says that he was a necessary party to the proceedings in the suit and his prayer had been erroneously rejected.