IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.429 OF 2009 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1996 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.1745 OF 2007 Punjab and Maharashtra Co-operative Bank Ltd. ... Appellant Versus Kamal Kumar Bhola and others. ... Respondents Mr. D.D. Madon, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. B.H. Prasad Sarma for the appellant. Ms. Anvee Mehta with Ms. Sanchari Nandi i/by Yusufs & Associates for the respondents. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. DATED : 7TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 11th August, 2009. The impugned order reads as under:- "1. The suit is filed for specific performance of an alleged agreement for sale of the property by the Defendants to the Plaintiff. The proposed Defendant - Punjab & Maharashtra Cooperative Bank Limited claims to have a mortgage in respect of the said property prior to the alleged agreement. The proposed Defendant has adopted the proceedings under the D.R.T. Act. An application has been made by the Plaintiff under Section 17 of that Act before the D.R.T. It is submitted on behalf of the proposed Defendant that they are not concerned with the disputes between the Plaintiff and the Defendants. 2. The Plaintiff has, as against the proposed Defendant a complete remedy under the said Act. However, in view of the opposition of the proposed Defendant to be impleaded in this suit, it is made clear that it will hereafter not be open to the proposed Defendant to question any order that may be passed in this suit between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the ground that they are not the parties to this suit. Needless to add that all the remedies of the Plaintiff as against the proposed Defendant in proceedings adopted or to be adopted under the said Act are kept open. 3. The Chamber Summons is accordingly disposed of." 2. While impugning the above order, the grievance of the appellant to the above order is very limited to the extent that having not been impleaded as party to the suit, the learned Judge could not have said that they would not be heard to say that the orders in the suit are not binding because they are not party to the suit. According to the counsel appearing for the appellant, in view of section 34 of the Securitisation Act, they being the secured creditors, in fact, cannot be compelled to be present before the Civil Court. We are not concerned with the merit of that contention. Under the impugned order, they have not been impleaded or directed to be impleaded as party. The court has not adjudicated and ordered their impleadment being a necessary or proper party in the suit and has merely relied upon the statement made. Thus, the observations made by the learned Single Judge that they will not be entitled to question any order that may be passed in this suit between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the ground that they are not the parties to this suit, are not binding upon them cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the said observation will have to be set aside. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed to the above extent with no order as to costs. Ordered accordingly. CHIEF JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.