C.R. No. 3733 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3733 of 2009 Date of Decision: August 10, 2009 Jagdish Singh …..Petitioner Vs. Rajinder Singh and another …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Rajneesh Chadwal, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff has challenged the order dated June 2, 2009 passed by Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Rohtak, dismissing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC praying for impleading the Punjab National bank, Sampla as a party to the civil suit as the said Bank is an interested party in the suit property by virtue of a mortgage deed dated June 10, 1999 (wrongly typed in the order as June 10, 2009). In order to appreciate the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the Punjab National Bank, Sampla is necessary or proper C.R. No. 3733 of 2009 [2] party, I have, with the assistance of the counsel, gone through the copy of the plaint, written statement of the defendant- respondents and perused the impugned order. As per the plaint of the petitioner, he has challenged the validity of mortgage deed dated January 28, 1999 by virtue of which he had allegedly mortgaged the suit land against a loan of Rs.4 lacs, value of the property is claimed to be more than Rs.40 lacs. The plaintiff has not made any mention regarding the mortgage deed dated June 10, 1999 in the plaint. A perusal of the written statement filed by Rajinder Singh and another, defendant- respondents has also been perused by me. There is not even mention of the second mortgage deed. In view of above circumstances, it is not apparent as to how Punjab National Bank with whom the petitioner had mortgaged the property in dispute against a loan of Rs.5 lacs is a necessary party. The failure or success of the case of the plaintiff regarding the rights of the parties in context to mortgage deed dated January 28, 1999 will not, in any manner, affect the rights of the Punjab National Bank who is stated to be a subsequent mortgagee. Alleged charge created against the same property by virtue of two mortgage deeds is not the point in controversy in the civil suit. Taking into consideration the stage of the case and no relief having been claimed against the bank, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application under Order Rule 1 Rule 10 CPC. Dismissed. August 10, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE C.R. No. 3733 of 2009 [3]