AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.K. Deb, J.—This Revision has been preferred by the above named Petitioners whose intervention petition under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC was rejected by the impugned order in the Court of Subordinate Judge, I, Hazaribagh.
The admitted position remains that the Plaintiff O.P. No. 1 filed the above mention suit against the Opposite parties No. 2 to 4 for realization of the outstanding dues on the basis of mortgage by deposit of title deed in taking loan by the Opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. While the suit was pending then this intervener petition was filed on the ground that the Opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 had entered into an agreement of sale of a part of the property involved in the present suit in favour of the Petitioner and took the whole amount of consideration money and put them in possession and the surreptitiously the Opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 are not contesting the suit and going to give an ex parte decree in favour of the Plaintiff-Opposite party No. 1 and as such they wanted to implied as Defendants in the suit and contest the suit.
The suit was a Mortgage suit on the Stasis of the Mortgage contract being arrived at between the O.P. No. 1 on one side and O.P. Nos. 2 and 4 on the other side, and on such mortgage suit the learned Court below has rightly held that the Petitioners can have no say in the contractual agreement between the parties to the suit.
During the course of submission of Mr. N.K. Prasad, appearing for and on behalf of the Petitioners, it could be felt that there is apprehension in the mind of the Petitioners that their interest over the part of the suit property may be in jeopardy if the ex parte decree is obtained by the Plaintiff-Opposite party and then property is put on sale for satisfying the debt from the mortgage amount.
It must also be mentioned here that the Petitioners had already filed a suit for specific performance of their contract on the basis of the agreement with O.P. Nos. 2 and 3. Definitely, the Petitioners have not yet acquired any right over any part of the suit property as no title has yet been conveyed to them Moreover, if there is an agreement between the Petitioners and Opposite parties No. 2 and 3 as stated then also the said agreement must be subject to mortgage when admittedly the agreement was arrived at after the mortgage was made with the bank authorities. I do not find that in the facts and circumstances, the Petitioners are either necessary or proper party in the Mortgage suit between the Opposite party No. 1 on one side and O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 on the other side, and hence the learned Court below had rightly rejected the prayer of the Petitioners under Order 1, Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure.
As there is no force in this Revision petition, the same is dismissed. However the Petitioners shall have the liberty to move the appropriate Court at appropriate stage.
Stay order passed earlier is hereby withdrawn. The lower Court records may be immediately dispatched to the lower Court so that the suit can be preceded as expeditiously as possible.