Delhi District Court
Sushant Bansal vs Radhey Shyam Bansal on 5 July, 2007
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE: DELHI
(FAST TRACK COURT)
Suit No.310/06
Sushant Bansal .....Plaintiff.
Versus
Radhey Shyam Bansal .....Defendant.
ORDER
1. This order of mine shall disposed off the following two applications:-
(i).Application U/o 1 R 10 r.w. Sec. 151 CPC moved by Sh.
Mahender Kumar Bansal interalia making a prayer for impleadng him as a party to the present suit.
(ii).Application U/o 1 R 10 r.w. Sec. 151 CPC moved by defendant Sh. Radhey Shyam Gupta interalia making a prayer that the father of the plaintiff i.e. Sh. Mahender Kumar Bansal and State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-6 may be impleaded as parties to the present suit.
2. In the first application, it is stated that the applicant is the father of plaintiff, who from his old aged mother came to know about the pendency of the present suit. The suit is not maintainable against the defendant as the funds for preparing the Fixed Deposit Receipts were provided by the applicant and not by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was only the beneficiary of the said Fixed Deposit Receipts and the defendant had already paid the amount of the Fixed Deposit Receipts to the applicant, who is the father of the plaintiff after encashing the same by issuing cheques no.0691407 dated 28.11.2001 for Rs.3,00,000/- and no. 0691408 dated 01.12.2001 for Rs.2,85,000/- drawn on Bikaner and Jaipur Bank, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-6 and the applicant has acknowledged the receipt of the said payment by executing the receipt dated 22.12.2001. The suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as the applicant is necessary party for the disposal of the present suit as the amount for preparing the F.D.R.s was given by him and the same was later on handed over to him which was used for welfare and growing up of the plaintiff for which purpose the said Fixed Deposit Receipts were prepared.
3. Plaintiff contested the application by filing the reply of aforesaid application in which it is stated that the application is filed by the applicant at the instance of the defendant in order to help him who has already filed an application claiming the same relief on the same set of allegations, therefore the application is liable to be dismissed. The application as filed by the applicant is not maintainable and the same has been filed with malafide intentions to side track the issue and to delay the proceedings. The application is made in order to get some admission by the proposed respondent in order to avoid the liability by the defendant.
On merits side it is submitted that the plaintiff admittedly was the beneficiary and entitled to get the benefit, who was the minor at that time. The receipt dated 22.12.2001 is procured document and is not binding upon the plaintiff in any manner whatsoever. The presence of applicant is neither necessary nor proper to adjudicate the dispute and the defendant is liable to repay the amount.
4. In the second application filed by the defendant Sh. Radhey Shyam Bansal it is submitted that the suit is not maintainable against the defendant as the amount for preparing the F.D.R.s was not given by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was only the beneficiary of the said F.D.R.s and the defendant had already paid the amount of the F.D.R.s to the father of the plaintiff after encashing the same by issuing cheques no.0691407 dated 28.11.2001 for Rs.3,00,000/- and no.0691408 dated 01.12.2002 for Rs.2,85,000/- drawn on Bikaner and Jaipur Bank, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-6 vide receipt dated 22.12.2001. Since the father of the plaintiff is necessary party for the disposal of the present suit as the amount of preparing the F.D.R.s was given by him and was later on handed over to him, therefore the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. Moreover, the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Chandni Chowk, Delhi is also a necessary party as the plaintiff had got issued the notice to the said bank also wherein the plaintiff claimed the connivance between the defendant and said bank.
5. The plaintiff also contested this application by filing the separate reply in which too he claimed that the proposed respondents are neither necessary nor proper party for the adjudication of the dispute between the parties and the same has been filed with malafide intention and in order to get some admission by the proposed respondent in order to avoid the liability by the defendant. It is denied that the defendant paid any amount to the father of the plaintiff and the father of the plaintiff was competent to receive the payment and acknowledged any payment. The receipt is forged and fabricated document and created only to defeat the rightful claim of the plaintiff.
6. I have carefully heard the rival submissions of the counsels for the parties. I have also thoroughly perused the entire relevant material placed in the file and in my considered opinion there is substance in both the applications with respect to the impleadment of Sh. Mahender Kumar Bansal as a party to the suit because he is the necessary and proper party for the just and effective adjudication of the present litigation. He is the father of the plaintiff and the son of the defendant and the alleged transactions were claimed to have been taken place through him. Thus he is a necessary party but this is not so in respect of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Chandi Chowk, Delhi-6, the other proposed defendant, as neither any relief or claim has been lodged or claimed against it nor there is any allegation against the same. Further the bank can very well be summoned as a witness by the parties to prove their case in case any necessity arises. Thus both the applications are allowed to the extent that Sh. Mahender Kumar Bansal is permitted to be impleaded as defendant no.2, whereas the prayer in respect of the impleadment of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Chandi Chowk, Delhi-6 is rejected.
With this both the application stand disposed off.
(Announced in the open (RAKESH KUMAR)
court today on 05.07.2007) ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
DELHI