[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 8199 OF 2007 THE NASHIK MERCHANTS CO-OP.BANK LTD., NASHIK ... PETITIONER. VS. M/S. THAKKAR & SONS AND ORS. ... RESPONDENTS. MR. R.M.HARIDAS I/B. P.N.JOSHI FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. R.V.PAWASKAR FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.8. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.A.Sayed, J. : A.A.Sayed, J. : A.A.Sayed, J. DATE DATE DATE : April 24, 2008. : April 24, 2008. : April 24, 2008. P.C. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent. 2. This petition impugns the order dated 14.8.2007 passed by the Civil Judge S.D. Nasik, whereby the applications vide Exhibit 46 and 60 filed by third parties came to be allowed and the third parties were directed to be impleaded as defendants in the suit. 3. The case of the petitioner- Bank is that the aforesaid third parties, who are members of the petitioner- Bank are not necessary and proper parties to the suit and that the learned Trial Judge has not considered the relevant provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) which provides that only parties which are necessary parties can be allowed to be added as parties [2] to the suit and the Trial Court has erred in allowing them to be impleaded as party defendants. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the third parties are not such that their presence before the court is necessary to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the question involved in the suit. The learned Counsel has relied upon the decisions in case of GIRDHARI LAL VS. NAGAR PARISHAD reported in AIR 1988 Rajasthan, 128; P.M.A. HAKEEM VS. U.P. CO-OPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS FEDERATION LTD. & ORS. reported in 2002(3) ALL M.R. 389; SHANTILAL VS. SHIV PAL SINGH reported in AIR 1988 RAJASTHAN 130. and AIR 1992(2) SCC 524, in case of RAMESH H. KUNDANMAL VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY. 5. Relying upon the aforesaid decisions the learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner- bank cannot be compelled to litigate with some person, when the bank has not claimed any relief against that person in their suit. He further submitted that merely because the third party is a member of the Bank or even a director or ex-director, it will not give them right to be added as party defendant to the suit. It is further submitted by him that the application of the respondents for being added [3] as parties is only on the basis of apprehension that the suit may not be properly defended. He further invited my attention to the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. which provides as under :- "O.1 "O.1 "O.1 R.10(2): Court may strike out or add R.10(2): Court may strike out or add R.10(2): Court may strike out or add parties. parties. parties. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.". 6. Lastly he submitted that if such applications by third parties are allowed the day to day functioning of Banks would be affected as all the members would then come forward and make applications to become parties to the suits filed by the Banks and the Banks would be compelled to litigate unnecessarily. [4] 7. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 8 has submitted that the impugned Order has been rightly passed by the Trial Court. It is his contention that the defendant No. 6 was the Chairman of the Bank at the relevant time when a huge fraud was unearthed and due to his political influence he may not allow the suit to be defended properly and take the suit to its logical conclusion so as to recover the amount due to the petitioner- Bank and as such the members of the Bank would be put to loss and they will be affected. He also submitted that in respect of the said fraud a PIL came to be filed in this court and the same has been recently disposed of and an inquiry has been ordered in respect of the fraud committed. He further submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner- Bank if the respondents are added as party defendants to the suit. The learned Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the case of STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. THE PODAR MILLS LTD., reported in AIR 198 BOM. 215 to submit that in that case also the court had allowed the application of third party to be impleaded as party defendant. He therefore urged that the impugned order be upheld and the petition be dismissed. 8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. The only point for consideration is [5] whether the respondent NO. 8 and 9 are necessary parties to the suit and that whether they should be allowed to be added as party defendants as has been ordered by the Trial Court by its impugned order. 9. From a bare reading of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. and the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner it is, but obvious that only a necessary party can be added as party defendant to the suit. Necessary party is one, in whose absence the suit cannot be effectually decided. In the case in hand the respondent NO. 8 and 9 cannot be said to be necessary parties as even if they are not added as party- defendants, the suit can be effectually decided. It it to be borne in mind that this is a suit for recovery of money and merely because the respondent No 8 and 9 have an apprehension that suit will not be defended properly and taken to its logical conclusion because of the influence of the respondent No. 6, that in itself would not entitle the respondent No. 8 and 9 to get themselves impleaded as party - defendants. In case cited by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 8, the the workers were not paid their wages and their source of livelihood which was ultimately going to affect their survival and the participation of the workers in the management was directly in issue and the Court, therefore, held that the workers were necessary [6] parties. The facts of the case in hand are different and, therefore, the decision cited by the learned Counsel for the respondents can be of no assistance to the respondents. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that the learned Trial Judge has clearly erred in allowing the application of the Respondent No. 8 and 9. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the Trial Court. 11. The writ petition is allowed and the rule is made absolute. No order as to costs. ..... [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, J.] J.] J.]