IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE th ON THE 14 OF MAY, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 2393 of 2025 RAKESH MALHOTRA Versus LIEUTENANT COLONEL (RETD) ASHOK KUMAR MALHOTRA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri N K Gupta - Senior Advocate with Ms. Rashi Kushwah -

Advocate for the petitioner .

ORDER This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 17.04.2025 passed by XIIth District Judge, Gwalior in Regular Civil Suit No.1038/2024 whereby two applications filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 9 CPC mentioning the fact that there is a non-joinder of necessary parties and two applications under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading the necessary parties have been rejected.

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that learned trial Court has rejected the said applications on the ground that merely because of depositing the amount in the Banks i.e. State Bank of India, Punjab National Bank and Post Office by the parties, it cannot be said that the Banks have any interest in the matter and apart from this, the tenant of the disputed property does not have any ownership right in the property, hence they cannot be Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA considered to be necessary and proper parties. In Para 6 of the plaint, the details of moveable properties i.e. bank accounts and FDs of their predecessor Haveli Ram Malhotra have been mentioned and in Para 8 of the plaint, it is clearly mentioned that all properties of their predecessor are in dispute but despite that the applications filed by the petitioner for impleading Banks and tenant as necessary parties have been rejected. If the Banks are allowed to be impleaded as defendants in the matter, directions can be issued for proportionate apportionment of the amount deposited by their predecessor. Unless the Banks are impleaded as parties, they cannot be supposed to comply with the order if any passed in the matter. The another property, which is immovable property, is in possession of tenant, therefore, the tenant is also a necessary party but despite that the applications filed by the petitioner for impleading the Banks i.e State Bank of India, Punjab National Bank and Post Office and the tenant as parties have been rejected by the trial Court. Thus, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 17.04.2025 be set-aside and the applications filed by the petitioner for impleading the Banks i.e State Bank of India, Punjab National Bank and Post Office and the tenant as parties be allowed.

3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Banks are not necessary or interested party because the Banks are just custodian of the amount which has been deposited in the Bank accounts and FDs of their predecessor and for proportionate apportionment of the amount, the Banks are not required to be impleaded as party. Moreso, in the plaint, no relief has Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA been sought against the Banks and tenant, therefore, no illegality has been committed by learned trial Court in rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.

4. Even otherwise, this is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India having supervisory jurisdiction and limited scope of interference as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shhankar Patil reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329, wherein certain guidelines have been issued by the Supreme Court, which are as under:-

"The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited. If order is shown to be passed by a Court having no jurisdiction, it suffers from manifest procedural impropriety or perversity, interference can be made. Interference is made to ensure that Courts below act within the bounds of their authority. Another view is possible, is not a grou