B.C. Varma, C.J.
1. This revision petition is by the plaintiff-bank whose application for impleading two persons, namely, Darshan Lal Gupta, the then manager of the bank and A.K. Jain of M/s. Dinesh Motors, as defendants has been rejected by the trial court.
2. The plaintiff-bank is alleged to have advanced a certain loan to Ram Singh (since dead) who is being represented by his legal representatives, Bhupinder Singh, and Hari Chand. The advance was against hypothecation of a tractor. The defendant-borrowers denied the claim. The plaintiff-bank then examined Darshan Lal Gupta, the then manager of the bank as a witness. In the witness box, Darshan Lal Gupta completely exonerated the defendant-borrowers stating that no loan was advanced to them. He denied any knowledge of having advanced any loan to the defendant-respondents for purchase of tractor or otherwise. The witness was then declared hostile. A.K. Jain, proprietor of M/s. Dinesh Motors, was also examined. He deposed to have delivered the tractor to the manager, Darshan Lal Gupta. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff-petitioner moved an application for impleading these two persons as defendants. In my opinion, the trial court committed an error in not allowing Darshan Lal Gupta to be added as a party to the suit. According to the plaintiff-bank, the loan was advanced and Darshan Lal Gupta was the manager of the bank at the relevant time. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff-bank as well could sue Darshan Lal Gupta in the alternative for recovery of the amount which is allegedly not advanced to the defendant-respondents. In this view of the matter, Darshan Lal Gupta, in my opinion, is a necessary party to the suit and it is directed that he be impleaded as a respondent with a view to give finality to the litigation.
3. So far as A.K. Jain is concerned, I do not see any privity between the plaintiff-bank and A.K. Jain, who has delivered the tractor against price. Whether that tractor is in the possession of the plaintiff or respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (borrowers) is not the concern of Shri Jain. On the plaintiff's own showing that the tractor has been hypothecated with the bank, so far as the seller, i.e., A.K. Jain of M/s. Dinesh Motors is concerned,he is exonerated of all liability. The part of order refusing to implead A.K. Jain must be upheld.
4. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision petition is partly allowed. It is directed that Darshan Lal Gupta be impleaded as a defendant to the suit which shall now proceed against him also in accordance with law. However, the part of order refusing to implead A.K. Jain as defendant is maintained. In view of the partial success of the revision petition, there shall be no order as to costs.