Civil Revision No. 6609 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6609 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision. 01.11.2011 Gurcharan Singh .... Petitioner Versus State Bank of Patiala and ors. ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. Vinod Kumar Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. CM No.25850-CII of 2011 This is an application for permission to place on record Annexures P-1 and P-2 and for exemption from filing certified copies thereof. Miscellaneous application is allowed. Annexures P-1 and P- 2 are taken on record and the petitioner is exempted from filing certified copies thereof. CR No.6609 of 2011 Gurcharan Singh, plaintiff has brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the order dated 07.10.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Zira vide which his application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has been dismissed. Civil Revision No. 6609 of 2011 --2-- The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction on the plea that he had got issued two demand drafts from respondent no.1 on 26.12.2005 and 28.12.2005 respectively in a sum of Rs.17,000/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively. They were payable at State Bank of India, Chilwaria, District Branch (UP) to Hari Ram. Afterwards the plaintiff came to know that Hari Ram while leaving his place has stolen some articles. He requested respondent no.2 to stop the payment of the aforesaid drafts to respondent no.3 as the same were obtained from him by playing fraud upon him. Respondent no.1 was also requested to issue duplicate drafts to him so as to enable him to cancel the original drafts. As the same was not done, the plaintiff had filed the suit. In the course of the proceedings, he applied for a direction to defendant no.2 to return the drafts. Defendant no.2 had replied the said application claiming that they had sent the same to their Head Quarter at Braich and that they were not having those drafts. It is in these circumstances that the plaintiff applied for impleading State Bank of India, Braich Branch, as defendant. The application has been dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Zira vide the order dated 07.10.2011. I have heard Shri Vinod Kumar Khunger, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioner after adverting to the aforesaid facts has submitted that the petitioner is the plaintiff of the suit and he can implead Braich Branch also as a defendant in the suit. Civil Revision No. 6609 of 2011 --3-- No injunction involving the Braich Branch has been sought by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had sent the drafts to Chilwaria Branch of the State Bank of India and it is that branch which had sent the drafts to its main branch for disbursement of the amounts of the said drafts. The amount already stands paid to Hari Ram and this reflects upon the merits of the claim made by the plaintiff in the suit. The drafts had been sent by the plaintiff to defendant no.2 only and even if the drafts are lying at the moment with Braich Branch of State Bank of India, the said branch cannot be impleaded as defendant for this reason alone. Even the court has ample power to ask defendant no.2 to produce those drafts after taking them from Braich Branch and for this purpose it is not necessary to implead Braich Branch of the Bank as defendant in this suit. With this observation, I find no merit in the revision petition and, therefore, dismiss the same. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 01.11.2011 dinesh