The presence of a party before the court is necessary only if it is a necessary or a proper party to the suit, and its presence is required for the determination of any issue related to the subject matter of the suit.

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Palwal, dated 20.8.1998. Vide impugned order, the learned court dismissed an application filed by the defendants under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for impleadment of United India Insurance Company Limited as a defendant to the suit. The necessary facts are that the suit for recovery of Rs. 3,08,411/- was filed by the State Bank of Patiala against the defendants. Defendant No. 1 was granted facility to carry on the business of transporter to the extent of Rs. 2.5 lac and the defendants No. 2 to 8 had stood surety and executed the deed of guarantee. Certain FDRs were also pledged with the bank as security for repayment of the loan. The suit was contested by the defendants on various grounds. During the pendency of the present suit an application was filed with a prayer that the Insurance Company i.e. United Insurance Company Limited be impleaded as a defendant because the truck in question was insured with the said Company. For this purpose, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made a reference to clause 7 of the policy, which reads as under :-

"7. Insurance:-

The truck to be purchased should be got comprehensively insured for the full value with an approved Insurance Corporation in the joint name of the Bank and the borrower as hypothecatee and hypothecator respectively at the cost of the borrower. The Banks name should be appearing first in the policy with agreed Banks clause. The requirement of insurance cover may be waived on the request of the borrower. Under such circumstances, a suitable insurance waiver letter will be obtained from the borrower."

2 Thus, according to him, the Insurance Company is a necessary party to the present suit.

3. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is certainly without any merit. No doubt the truck in question is hypothecated to the bank and the aforementioned clause 7 of the letter of consent required the defendants to insure the truck with the Insurance Company. This does not mean that in a suit simplicitor for recovery between the bank and its debtors, the Insurance Company would become a necessary party. At best the bank in execution of its decree, if passed in its favour, would be entitled to recover the amount by the sale of the truck in normal course of its business. In the present case, the money that has to be paid by the Insurance Company would obviously be paid to the bank because the truck stands in the name of the bank. The amount which is payable by the Insurance Company would be paid to the insurer in terms of the policy and the bank obviously would have interest in that payment but that no-way renders the Insurance Company as a necessary or a proper party to the present suit.

4. Once a party is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit, its presence before the court is not necessary for determination of any issue, subject matter of the suit. The court would decline impleadment of such a party. It is not disputed that the truck was hypothecated to the bank and is insured with the said Insurance Company. In face of these facts no controversy of determination in that regard arises before the learned trial Court, which would call for determination. The suit is simplicitor for recovery of the loan advanced. The truck is nothing more than a security.

5. In find no jurisdiction or any other error in the impugned judgment. Consequently, this revision petition is dismissed in limine.