Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. For better understanding of the case, following tabler form is extracted to show against which order in the original suit, which revision petition has been preferred and the same reads as under:

Sl.No. C.R.P.Number I.A.Number O.S.Number BSS,J and batch

4. The case of proposed defendants before the trial Court in brief is that they are third parties and they also filed suit against second respondent/D1 for recovery of their mortgage debt dated 10.03.2008 wherein they added all the subsequent mortgagees. They submit that the first respondents/plaintiffs, who are revision petitioners herein, filed suits, wherein purposefully avoided to implead them as defendants. It is also the contention of proposed parties that they being subsequent mortgagees are necessary parties to the suit filed by first respondents/plaintiffs as per Order XXXIV Rule 1 CPC. They have stated that R2/D1 mortgaged entire 49 cents of land to them, whereas portion of land alone is mortgaged to first respondents/plaintiffs though it is prior mortgage. They pray to implead them as defendants in the suits being subsequent mortgagees. The petitioners/plaintiffs/revision petitioners filed counters denying averments in the affidavits of proposed parties. It is the contention of revision petitioners/first respondents/plaintiffs that proposed parties being subsequent mortgagees are not necessary parties to the suit as property under mortgage was already sold by the bank and thereafter, deposited balance of sale consideration amount after appropriating the debt due to them. They also submit that proposed parties filed writ petition and got orders and they intended to implead as parties to the suit though BSS,J and batch their right to redemption extinguished as there is no property available. It is the contention of revision petitioners/first respondents/plaintiffs in the suits that the proposed parties are neither necessary nor proper parties. They pray to dismiss the revision petitions.

5. After hearing both sides, the learned trial Judge allowed the petitions filed by the proposed defendants and directed the revision petitioners/plaintiffs to amend the plaint by adding the proposed parties as defendants in the suits.

6. Aggrieved by the orders passed by Court below, revision petitioners, who are plaintiffs in the above referred ten suits, have preferred 20 revision petitions with similar grounds. It is the contention of revision petitioners that trial Court failed to understand the scope and significance of Order I Rule 10 CPC read with Order XXXIV Rule 1 CPC and also misread the ratio laid down in Soli Pestonji Vs. Gangadhar1. They submit that trial Court failed to see that provisions of Order XXXIV Rule 1 CPC are not mandatory, which are only directory and trial Court erred in holding that the attachment of amount made by the revision petitioners in the suits cannot prevail over the puisne mortgagee. They pray to allow the revision petitions and dismiss the AOR 1969 SC 600 BSS,J and batch petitions filed by proposed parties to implead them as respondents in the suits filed by them.

7. I have heard Mr.M.R.S.Srinivas, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr.O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents.

8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners mainly contended that admittedly proposed defendants are subsequent mortgagees and now there is no mortgaged property, which already sold by them for recovery of their debt and remaining sale proceeds alone have been deposited by filing inter-pleadary suit, which also dismissed and thereafter revision petitioners filed petition to sent for the amounts, which they are entitled basing on mortgage deed executed by R2/D1 in all suits in their favour. He would submit that Order XXXIV Rule 1 CPC is only a procedural law, which will not over right provisions of Section 60 of Transfer of Property Act. He would further submits that as per Section 91 of Transfer of Property Act, proposed parties are not necessarily be impleaded in the suit filed by prior mortgagee when their mortgaged property is not available. It is the contention of learned counsel for revision petitioners that plaintiffs cannot be forced to fight against the person whom they are not intended to fight. He argued that right to redemption by the proposed parties already extinguished and BSS,J and batch Order XXXIV Rule 1 CPC cannot be read in isolation, which has to be read along with Order XXXIV Rule 13 CPC, as no money excess to the money due to the revision petitioners in all the suits is available, no purpose will be served to implead proposed parties as defendants in the suits filed by the revision petitioners. He relied on following precedent law:

15. On bare reading of above referred provision, which makes it clear that all persons having an interest either in the mortgaged security or in the right of redemption shall be joined as parties to any suit relating to a mortgage. This Court in P.Govinda Reddy Vs. Golla Obulamma9 also explained the scope of Order XXXIV Rule 1 CPC and held that as per Order XXXIV Rule 1 CPC, all those persons interested in the right to redemption or in the security have to be joined as parties to the suit. The object of the rule is to enable the Courts to do full justice to the parties according to their rights and liabilities as under law.