AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Respondents no.1 to 6 filed O.A. bearing T.A. No.259/2022 titled as Indian Overseas Bank & others V. M/s JMD Oils Private Limited & Ors., which is stated to be pending before DRT-III, Delhi. The appellant being defendant no.8 in the O.A. filed an application bearing No.754/2025 seeking rejection of the claim against him and deletion of his name from the array of parties in the O.A. DRT-III, Delhi vide impugned order dated 26.02.2026 dismissed the said application. The relevant part of the impugned order dated 26.02.2026 is reproduced as under:-
13.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced on behalf of Defendant No.8 as well as the reply filed by the Applicant Banks and have also perused the material available on record. The principal contention raised by Defendant No.8 in the present application is that he has been wrongly impleaded in the Original Application and that he has neither executed any deed of guarantee nor created any security in favour of the Applicant Banks. On this basis, it has been prayed that the Original Application be dismissed qua Defendant No.8 and his name be deleted from the array of parties. However, such contention cannot be adjudicated in isolation at this stage by way of an interlocutory application. The issue as to whether Defendant No.8 had stood as a guarantor for the loan facilities extended to Defendant No.1 and whether he is liable for the outstanding dues claimed by the Applicant Banks is essentially a matter requiring examination of the loan documents, evidence and the pleadings of the parties in the Original Application. Such questions go to the root of the merits of the claim and are required to be adjudicated during the final determination of the Original Application rather than at an interlocutory stage.
14.It is also pertinent to note that an earlier application seeking deletion of Defendant No.8 from the array of parties had already been dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 30.11.2016 as premature with liberty to raise the issue after completion of pleadings and evidence. The record further reflects that the pleadings in the matter have long been completed, documentary evidence of the Applicant Banks has already been exhibited and the matter had reached the stage of final arguments. In such circumstances, filing of the present application at this advanced stage of proceedings appears to be an attempt to reopen issues which are required to be decided in the final adjudication of the Original Application. Moreover, the contention of the Applicant Banks that Defendant No.8 had stood as a guarantor and is liable for the outstanding dues cannot be summarily rejected without appreciation of the entire evidence already forming part of the record.
15.In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the questions raised by Defendant No.8 pertain to the merits of the claim in the Original Application and cannot be decided through the present interlocutory application. The present application is therefore devoid of merit and does not warrant interference at this stage. Accordingly, I.A. No.754/2025 filed by Defendant No.8 is hereby dismissed.
16.The issue regarding the liability of Defendant No.8 including whether he had stood as a guarantor for the loan facilities shall be adjudicated on merit at the time of final disposal of the Original Application.
Sh. Rajinder Wali, Advocate for the appellant argued that the DRT while passing the impugned order dated 26.02.206 has not considered whether as per Order VII Rule 11 CPC and Order I Rule 10 CPC the appellant being the defendant no.8 is a necessary party in the O.A. bearing T.A. No.259/2022. He further argued that the appellant / defendant no.8 was not a guarantor and did not sign or execute any loan agreement. Sh. Wali during the course of arguments also referred to the written statement filed by the appellant being defendant no.8 before DRT-III, Delhi.
DRT-III, Delhi in the impugned order has observed that the liability of the appellant being defendant no.8 cannot be decided or adjudicated in isolation by way of interlocutory application. It was further observed that the issue as to whether defendant no.8 had stood as a guarantor for the loan facilities extended to Defendant No.1 and whether he is liable for the outstanding dues claimed by the bank requires examination of the loan documents. In the assessment of this Tribunal, the DRT-III, Delhi has rightly observed that the issue raised by the appellant being defendant No.8 in application bearing No.754/2025 pertains to the merits of the O.A. and cannot be decided through application. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order which warrants interference from this Tribunal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. However, the appellant being defendant no.8 shall be at liberty to raise all the pleas and contentions as taken in I.A. No.754/2025 at the time of final arguments before the DRT.