1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1544 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 1848 OF 2008 Surendra Laxman Raval ....Plaintiff Versus Shakar Dutt & Ors. ....Defendants and South Indian Bank ....Applicants Mr. Yogesh Bandal, Advocate for the Plaintiff. Mr. Umesh Shetty i/b. M/s. Umesh Shetty & Co., Advocate for the Applicants. Ms. Gunjan Shah i/b. Mr. S. A. Sawant, Advocate for Defendant No.1. Mr. Kunal Cheema i/b.Mr. Yadunath Chaudhari, Advocate for Defendant No.2. Mr. Kedar Wagle, Advocate for Defendant No.5. Mr. Jokhim Reis i/b. Ms. Reena Salunkhe, Advocate for Applicants in Chamber Summons No.479 of 2009. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATE : 14th JANUARY, 2010. P.C. : Heard the learned Counsel for respective parties. None appears on behalf of Defendant Nos. 3 & 4 though they are served. 2. The chamber summons is taken out by the Applicant to direct the Plaintiff to implead it as a party defendant in the above suit. 2 3. The suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 for specific performance of the agreement dated 29th April, 2008. Under the said agreement Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 agreed to sell to the plaintiff the suit property more appropriately described at Exhibit "A" to the suit. The Defendant Nos. 4 & 5 are the confirming parties to the said agreement. 4. It is the case of the Plaintiff that Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 agreed to sell the suit property to the Plaintiff for total consideration of Rs.55,00,000/- and this amount of total consideration was paid on the date of execution of an agreement. 5. The Applicant is a Banking Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and possess licence to carry on banking business from the Reserve Bank of India. The Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are the partners of M/s. Rashmin Trading Company. There is no dispute that the suit property belongs to the partners of the partnership firm i.e. M/s. Rashmin Trading Company. The Applicant advanced loan to Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 who are the partners of M/s. Rashmin Trading Company by executing registered mortgage of the suit property on 22nd December, 2004 and the total dues as on 12th June, 2007 are more than Rs. 2 crores. The said defendants/partnership firm failed to repay the loan to the Applicant and therefore, the Applicants were constrained to file Original Application in Debts Recovery Tribunal for recovery of the said amount. The Applicant has also taken alternative remedy against the said partnership firm and issued notice dated 13th June, 2007 under section 13 (2) of the 3 Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 6. The suit agreement is alleged to have been executed on 29th April, 2008 i.e. subsequent to notice by the Applicant under section 13 (2) of the said Act to Defendant Nos. 1 to 3. The suit agreement is clearly barred in view of the provisions of section 13 (13) of the said Act. The Applicant, therefore, has vital interest in the suit property and outcome of the suit will greatly prejudice it. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the presence of the Applicant would be necessary to decide lis between the parties. 7. The Plaintiffs as well as the Defendants have not controverted the facts stated in affidavit in support of the chamber summons by filing reply. In these facts and circumstances, the chamber summons is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). 8. The Plaintiffs shall carry out necessary amendment within a period of three weeks from today and serve amended copy of the plaint upon the Applicant within further period of two weeks. Sd/- (R. V. MORE, J.)