* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 24.04.2024 Judgment pronounced on: 02.07.2024 + CM(M) 426/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajiv B. Samaiyar & Mr.

Subhasani Kumari, Advs.

versus RAMESH KUMAR NAROOLA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Krishna Parkhani & Mr. Chandan Mishra, Advs. for R-1.

Mr. Rajiv Kapur & Mr. Akshit Kapur, Advs. for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR

J U D G M E N T

1. The necessary facts in brief for disposal of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are that respondent no. 1 had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner and respondent nos. 2 to 5 tilted as “Ramesh Kumar Naroola vs. State Bank of India & Ors.” in suit no. CS/DJ/32/2021.

2. Respondent no. 1 has averred in the suit that he was holding the credit card issued by the petitioner Bank for over 15 years. On 21.05.2020, two unauthorized payments were debited from the said credit card, a sum of Rs. 46,458.99/- was remitted to “No Broker Technologies” and on the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 426/2022 Page 1 of 8 same day a sum of Rs.47,104/- was again debited to the aforesaid order and remitted to “Housing.com” and in both these instances, the OTP required to authenticate the transactions was received after the amount was debited. The respondent no. 1, wrote two emails on 21.05.2020 and 23.05.2020 respectively and requested the respondents to take the necessary action on aforesaid mentioned debit entries on the credit card of respondent no. 1.

3. Acting upon the same, the credit card of respondent no. 1 was blocked and a new credit card was issued to him. It is further averment of respondent no. 1 that even before the new credit card had reached, two more payments were affected to the same payee on 24.05.2020 for a sum of Rs. 46,359/- which was remitted to “No Broker Technologies” and a sum of Rs. 48,142.13 was remitted to “Housing.com”. Respondent no. 1, thereafter sent emails to the respondent as well as to the petitioner for redressal of grievances. However, instead of redressing the grievances of respondent no. 1, the respondent no. 2 continued to make demand of payments from respondent no. 1 instead of investigating the fraud. Thereupon, respondent no. 1 sent legal notice dated 29.08.2020 to the petitioner as well as to respondent nos. 2 and 3. Respondent no. 2 duly replied to the legal notice stating that on the basis of investigation, respondent no. 2 found that transaction was performed in secured manner and the same has been validated by his SBI card details and dynamic OTP delivered at his registered mobile number.

4. Subsequent thereto, the respondent no. 1 filed the Civil Suit No. CS/DJ/32/2021 against the petitioner and respondent nos. 2 and 3. On service of summons of suit, the petitioner filed its written statement along with application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and Order I Rule 10 CPC Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 426/2022 Page 2 of 8 read with Section 151 CPC before the learned Trial Court wherein the petitioner sought rejection of the plaint qua the petitioner or to delete the petitioner from the array of parties of the suit filed by respondent no. 1.

5. Respondent no. 1 did not prefer to file reply to the application. After hearing the arguments, vide the impugned order dated 07.03.2022, the learned Trial Court rejected the application of the petitioner. Aggrieved petitioner, thus invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the impugned order. Submissions of the petitioner

6. Mr. Rajiv B. Samaiyar, learned counsel submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Trial Court wrongly arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner is necessary party to the suit. Petitioner in the suit is neither necessary party nor a proper party. When respondent no. 1 informed the petitioner through email about the aforesaid instances, the petitioner had only forwarded the e