Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 528
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Shalinder Kaur, J
STATE BANK OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
RAMESH KUMAR NAROOLA & ORS. – Respondent
CM(M)-426/2022
Mr. Rajiv B. Samaiyar & Mr. Subhasani Kumari, Advs. for Appellant; Ms. Krishna Parkhani & Mr. Chandan Mishra, Advs. for R-1; Mr. Rajiv Kapur & Mr. Akshit Kapur, Advs. for R-2.
The distinction between necessary and proper parties is essential in determining party involvement in a suit, requiring careful examination of contractual relationships and relevant documents.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 and Order I Rule 10 - Suit for declaration and permanent injunction - Petitioner challenged the trial court's order rejecting its application to be removed from the suit, asserting it was neither a necessary nor proper party - Court found that the trial court failed to consider relevant documents regarding the credit card issuance and the relationship between the parties - Matter remanded for reconsideration. (Paras 1-22)
(B) Necessary and Proper Parties - The distinction between necessary and proper parties is crucial in determining the parties to a suit, as established in Global Ground (India) Employees Union vs. Lufthansa German Airlines. (Paras 19-20)
Facts of the case:
Respondent no. 1 filed a suit against the petitioner and others regarding unauthorized transactions on a credit card issued by a subsidiary of the petitioner. The petitioner contended it was not a necessary party, while the respondent argued otherwise based on the corporate relationship.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's order was found to lack consideration of essential documents and the corporate structure, necessitating a remand for fresh consideration.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is a necessary party to the suit and whether there is a cause of action against it.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to examine the contractual relationship and relevant documents to determine the necessity of parties in a suit.
Result: Petition disposed of, matter remanded for reconsideration.
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 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 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 email to CEO, SBI Card and Payment Services Ltd. which is a distinct organization from the petitioner. Thus, merely by forwarding the mail of respondent no. 1 to correct organization does not establish that the petitioner is a necessary party to the suit.
7. The learned counsel further submitted that the credit card was issued to respondent no. 1 by respondent no. 2 and not by the petitioner and that petitioner is a stranger party to the suit. The petitioner cannot be forced to face the trial on the ground merely because respondent no. 1 would be incidentally affect
