AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
F. M. Reis, J.—Heard Shri S. D. Padiyar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 2. The above Petition challenges the Order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji, in Civil Misc. Application no. 67/02/A in Special Civil Suit no. 60/2000/A, whereby an application filed by the Petitioner under sub-rule 2 of Rule 10 of the CPC to implead Bank of India as a party, came to be dismissed.
The Petitioner filed the suit against the Respondents herein claiming damages essentially on the ground that by Contract entered between the Petitioner and the Respondent no. 1 who had borrowed money from Bank of India, it was agreed that the loan amount would be paid by the Petitioner. It is further his case that the Agreement came to be entered between the Petitioner and the Respondent no. 1 on 13.08.1999 to that effect. It is further the case of the Petitioner that pursuant to the said Agreement, he had started depositing amounts in the loan account of the Respondent no. 1 with the said Bank and that he had also paid insurance premium. It is further the case of the Petitioner that despite of the said Agreement, the trawler which was hypothecated to the Bank was seized and, as such, the Petitioner had suffered substantial damages which they are entitled to recover from the Respondents herein. It is further his case that the trawler was stolen and was handed over to the Respondent no. 1. It is also his case that the Respondent no. 2 had stolen the trawler and handed over the same to the Respondent no. 1. For the other allegations as stated in the plaint, the Petitioner has filed the suit for recovery of damages against the Respondents herein.
The said suit came to be resisted by the Respondents by filing their written statements and by disputing the averments by the Petitioner in the plaint.
During the course of the hearing of the above suit, the Petitioner filed an application to implead Bank of India as a party. By the impugned Order, the learned Judge dismissed the application filed by the Petitioner.
Shri Padiyar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, has assailed the impugned Order essentially on the ground that according to him the Agreement entered into between the Petitioner and the Respondent no. 1, was with the consent of the said Bank. Learned Counsel further pointed out that pursuant to the said Agreement, installments for the payment of the loan amount were duly deposited with the said Bank. Learned Counsel further pointed out that despite of the said Arrangement, the trawler which was being operated by the Petitioner was stolen by the Respondent no. 2 and handed over to the Respondent no. 1. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the amount recovered from the trawler has been appropriated illegally by the Respondent no. 1. Learned Counsel as such submits that on account of such act, the Respondents are liable to pay damages to the Petitioner.
On the other hand, Shri Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 2, has pointed out that on going through the plaint filed by the Petitioner, there is no relief sought against Bank of India. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the allegations if at all are that the Respondent no. 2 had stolen the said trawler in his personal capacity. In support of his contention, Shri Rao, learned Counsel, has referred to the complaint lodged by the Petitioner to the Police Station immediately after the trawler was taken over on 12.05.2000. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the loan granted to the Respondent no. 1 has already been repaid and the loan account has accordingly been closed. Learned Counsel further pointed out that there is no averment in the plaint against the said Bank and, as such, the question of impleading the said Bank does not arise.
I have considered the contention of the learned Counsel. I have gone through the lain as well as the written statement filed by the Respondent. On perusal of the averment in the plaint, the allegations, if any, are against the Respondent no. 2 in his personal capacity. Apart from that, the reference to Bank of India in the plaint is in the context that the Petitioner had deposited the amounts at the instance of the Respondent no. 1 in the loan account with Bank of India. These payments in any event does not give any cause of action to the Petitioner as against the Bank. The Petitioner would have to establish the alleged Agreement with the Respondent no. 1 to establish his case of damages, if any. It is also not in dispute that Bank is not a party to the said Agreement executed between the Petitioner and the Respondent no. 1. In such circumstances, the question of claiming that there is any nexus with the bank with regard to the allegations made in the plaint would not arise. Apart from that, as rightly pointed out by Shri Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 2, there is no relief against Bank of India nor any consequential amendment to the plaint. The learned Judge has rightly dismissed the application to implead Bank of India as party. There is no jurisdictional error committed by the learned Judge whilst passing the impugned Order. Hence, no interference is called for in the impugned Order. It is clarified that the findings rendered herein are only for the purpose of deciding the application to implead Bank of India as a party on the basis of the material on record at this stage and shall not influence the Trial Court whilst passing any other Orders on merits. The Petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged accordingly. Interim stay, if any, stands vacated.