C. Vijayakumar vs State Bank India

K.M. Natarajan, J.—This revision is directed against an order refusing to implead the Union of India as a party to the suit. It is seen that a

suit O.S. 68 of 1983, has been filed by the State Bank of India, represented by its branch Manager, Tiruvannamalai (respondent herein) against

the petitioner and two others for recovery of amounts which were advanced to them and the suit is being contested and it is pending from the year

1983. The petitioner filed I.A. 394 of 1989 to implead the Union of India as a party to the said on the ground that a batch of writ petitions against

the Government of India and the concerned banks are pending before the Supreme Court of India and the Supreme Court had directed the

Government of India to evolve a scheme acceptable to majority of persons concerned including the banks by granting certain time for sale and the

same is pending before the Supreme Court of India and that they have got a fair chance of success in the writ petition. Hence the necessity to file

the present application for impleading the Union of India. The respondent/plaintiff (bank) filed a counter opposing the application on the ground

that no cause of action ever arose for impleading the Government of India in this case and that the Government of India is not a party to the

contract between the parties and that the intention of the petitioner is to delay and protract the proceedings.

After hearing both sides, the court below came to the conclusion that the presence of the Union of India in the suit is not at all necessary since it

is not a party to the contract between the petitioner and the respondent and dismissed the petition. After going through the affidavit of the petitioner

and the counter of the respondent and after hearing the learned counsel, I find that the impugned order is perfectly legal and correct and there is no

reason whatsoever for this Court to interfere with the same. As such this Court feels that the presence of the Union of India who is not a party to

the contract between the parties, is not at all necessary. It is open to the petitioner to agitate the claim in the writ petition now pending before

Supreme Court and if they get any favourable orders touching on the subject matter of the suit they can rely upon the same in the suit. With this

observation, the revision is dismissed.