The court held that the trial court did not err in rejecting the application to implead the National Insurance Company, as the insurance company was not a necessary party to the suit.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The present revision is being disposed of finally since the respondents have been served in this case and counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.

( 2 ) THE present revision is directed as against the order dt. 3rd Nov. 1987 by virtue of which an application by the present defendant-applicant to implead the National Insurance company was rejected.

( 3 ) A suit was filed by the respondents for recovery of amount which they had given on loan to the present applicant. It is in that suit that an application was moved by the applicant to implead the National Insurance Company since the truck for which the loan was obtained was insured. The trial court rejected the said application by saying that it is open to the plaintiff to implead such party as he desires. Therefore, non-impleadment of the National Insurance Company could not affect the adjudication of the right between the plaintiffs and defendant in the present case and accordingly the application of the applicant was rejected. Aggrieved as against the aforesaid order, the present applicant has filed this revision.

( 4 ) THE main argument contended on behalf of the applicant is that on the fact and the circumstances of this case and taking into consideration the provisions of O. 1 R. 3 and O. 1 R. 10 the trial court ought to have impleaded the aforesaid Insurance Company and its failure to do so has resulted into committing illegality which would prejudice and affect the applicants right and the said order is liable to be set aside. It is not in dispute that the present suit has been filed for recovery of loan for which the contract was signed between the parties. So far as the said Insurance Company is concerned, it accepts the contract being signed between the applicant and the said company insuring the said truck. The dispute and issue in the present suit is one which is confined to the contract between the bank and the present applicant. However, reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the applicant on para 8 of the contract which has been filed as Annexure-2 to the counter affidavit by the said Bank. It is provided under the aforesaid paragraph that the Borrower shall keep the said vehicle fully insured against loss or damage as may be required by the Bank from time to time on such basis and for such value as may be satisfactory to the Bank with such insurance office of repute to be approved of in writing by the Bank and the Borrower shall pay all premia for renewal of such insurance. In case of any claim arising under such insurance the proceeds thereof shall at the option of the Bank either be applied towards replacement thereof as far as possible or towards the satisfaction of the Banks dues.

( 5 ) IT is under this that an argument is raised that even under the contract since the insurance company has to be of repute to be approved of in writing by the Bank and which is acceptable to the Bank, the insurance company became necessary party and should be impleaded. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the applicant on two cases firstly the case of Foolchand v. Union of India, AIR 1961 Mad 64. In this case it is held that " a suit for damages against a railway carrier for loss of goods impleading therein the insurance company with whom the goods were insured and also praying for a decree against the latter is maintainable under O. 1 R. 3 C. P. C. It is further held that the court would not be justified in dismissing the suit for multifariousness without reference to the terms of the contract of insurance. " This is a decision where the plaintiff himself has impleaded the said insurance company under O. 1 R. 3 C. P. C. By mere perusal of the said Order it is clear that it is always open to the plaintiff to implead such party as it deems fit and proper and once such party is impleaded, it is in this light that Madras High Court has held that the trial court was not justified in d