Heard Sri Abid Alvi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shailendra Verma learned Standing Counsel for opposite party no.1 and Sri Anurag Srivastava learned counsel for opposite party no.3.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.
In view of the order, which is proposed to be passed notice to respondent no.2 is dispensed with.
In brief , the facts of the present case are that initially a loan was sanctioned by the State Bank of India, opposite party no.3 in favour of Lakhimpur Solvent Extraction Private Limited, Lakhimpur, opposite party no.2 in the year of 1989 and the respondent no.2 was defaulted in payment of loan. In view of the said fact, respondent no.3 filed a suit for recovery against opposite party no.2 in the year1992 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kheri.
After promulgation of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act ,1993, the said suit was transferred to Debt Recovery Tribunal , Lucknow and was registered as T.A. No. 211 of 2002 which is still pending for adjudication before the said authority where the opposite party no.2 has put in appearance.
In the meantime, respondent no.2 had filed another suit in the court of Civil Judge(Senior Division), Kheri which was registered as Civil Suit No. 268 of 2009, Lakhimpur Solvent Extraction Private Limited, Lakhimpur Vs. State Bank of India and others in which present petitioner was impleaded as opposite party no.2.
The petitioner, who is respondent in the said suit had moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. On 27.5.2009 which is 2 still pending for adjudication before opposite party no.1. As such the petitioner has requested that respondent no.1 be directed to dispose of the same .
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, respondent no.1 Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Kheri is directed to dispose of the said application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. Within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it.
It is clarified that this court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioner on merits.
With the above observations and directions , this writ petition is disposed of finally.
12.1.2010 D.K.