Karur Vysya Bank Limited & Anr vs Shri Lakshman Prasad Agarwal & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 7014 Cal

S/L 97
27.9.2022

Court No.652 SD CO 882 of 2021 With CAN 1 of 2021 With CAN 2 of 2022 With CAN 3 of 2022

Karur Vysya Bank Limited & Anr.

Vs.

Shri Lakshman Prasad Agarwal & Ors.

Mrs. Sweta Gandhi Mr. A.K. Gandhi ... for the Petitioners.

Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury Mr. Chayon Gupata Mr. Anujit Mookherji Mr. Rittik Chowdhury ... for the Opposite Party No.1.

Mr. Sandip Ghose Mr. Debayan Ghosh Mr. Aziz Amin ... for the Intervenor.

CAN 1 of 2021:-

This is an intervening application on behalf of the

applicant/aggrieved party.

The intervenor/applicant contended that the

intervenor being interested to buy a residential property

within the area of Beleghata, Kolkata for past some time,

researching and looking out for any prospective properties

for the same and on January 25, 2021, he came across E-

auction sale notice in a daily newspaper.

The petitioner no.1 herein had fixed the reserve price

of the said property on sale at Rs.3,12,00,000/- and the

earnest money deposited was Rs.31,20,000/-. Pursuant to

such publication/e-auction notice, the intervenor was

interested to purchase the aforesaid property, and he

contacted the petitioner no.1 and had come across all the

requisite documents pertaining to the terms and conditions

of the aforesaid e-auction process in respect of the said

property. The intervenor deposited the earnest money of

Rs.31,20,000/- as fixed by the petitioner no.1. E-auction

was conducted by the bank on February 10, 2021 and the

highest valid bid was received from the intervenor for an

amount of Rs.3,12,50,000/- which was approved and

accepted by the bank. Subsequently, by way of a letter, the

intervenor being a successful bidder in respect of the said

property, is required to pay remaining bid amount of

Rs.2,34,37,500/- within 15 days on or before 25.02.2021.

It was further intimated that there is a stay on the sale

property and the petitioner no.1 is in the process of vacating

the said stay and the balance 75% should be remitted by the

intervenor on 25.02.2021.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the

said letter dated February 10, 2021 the intervenor being the

successful bidder was asked to deposit the balance 75% on or

before 25.02.2021 or till the vacation of the stay whichever is

earlier. But by way of the impugned order, which is under

challenge in the instant revisional application, the order of

stay passed by the learned 1st Court is still continuing.

In such circumstances, the condition imposed in the

said letter by the Bank is not only irrational but also illegal

and derogatory to the interest of the intervenor.

Accordingly, the intervenor contended that he is the

interested, necessary and aggrieved party and as such, the

intervenor may be added as a party in the instant

proceeding.

Ms. Sweta Gandhi, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner/bank, submits that they do not have

any objection, if the prayer for adding the intervenor is

allowed.

Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the opposite party, has raised strong objection

contending that in the original case he was not impleaded as

a party. As such, in the revisional application he cannot be

added as a party and if he is added as a party in this

revisional application that will be prejudicial to the interest

of the opposite party.

I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of

all the parties.

The Order 1 Rule 10 makes it clear that the Court at

any stage of proceeding may add someone as a party who

ought to have 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.

It is also settled position of law that two tests are to be

specified for determining the question as to who is a

necessary party.

i) There must be a right to some relief against

such party in respect of the controversies

involved in the proceedings;

ii) No effective decree can be passed in the

absence of such party.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the intervenor

in this context has relied upon the apex court judgment

reported in (2005) 6 SCC 733.

He further submits that Rs.46,92,500/- has been paid

by the intervenor subsequently.

Having considered the factual circumstances of the

case and also considering the fact that the intervenor who is

the successful bidder in respect of the property and has

already been deposited a considerable sum of money,

certainly has a right to some relief against such party in

respect of controversy involved in the proceeding and he has

direct interest in the controversies involved in the

proceedings and in such circumstances, if the intervenor is

added as a party in terms of the Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code

of Civil Procedure, the opposite party or the bank will have

no cause to prejudice rather the dispute between the parties

that has cropped up will be disposed of in the presence of all

the interested parties.

In view of the above, the intervenor is added as

opposite party in this revisional application.

Department is directed to amend the cause title

accordingly.

Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2021 is disposed.

C.O. 882 of 2021:-

Leave to file affidavit-in-opposition to the revisional

application is granted and the same is directed to be filed

within two weeks after the ensuing puja vacation. Reply

thereto, if any, be filed one week thereafter.

Let the revisional application appear under the

heading 'Contested Application' on December 16, 2022.

Let there be an order of stay of all further proceedings

till December 16, 2022.

(Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)