Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 3804 (MAD)

K. Raghupathy v. K. R. Panneerselvam

2008-10-21

M.VENUGOPAL

body2008
Judgment :- The civil revision petitioner/defendant has filed this revision as against the order passed in I.A.No.178 of 2008 in O.S.No.205 of 2005 by the Principal Sub Judge, Salem in dismissing the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code. 2. The revision petitioner/defendant has filed I.A.No.178 of 2008 inter alia stating that he has never seen the respondent/plaintiff and never borrowed any amount and that he has not executed the pronote in favour of the plaintiff and that he was employed as a driver in the proposed party finance company and the proprietor T.K. Kuppusamy has obtained his signatures in the blank stamped pronote papers, white papers and further that the cashier has opened account in the State Bank of Mysore and obtained a cheque book in the name of the revision petitioner and has obtained his signatures in 10 blank cheques and these signatures were procured for the said chit and that the amount due under the chit was not paid and the controversy in the suit can be agitated only if the proposed party is also a party to the suit and therefore, the proposed party is a necessary party for disposal of the suit and has prayed to implead the proposed party P.S.K. Finance chits and Finance Ltd., by Managing Partner, Big Bazaar Street, Salem1 as second defendant in the suit. 3. The respondent/plaintiff has filed a counter specifically stating that the proposed party is neither a proper party or necessary party and that the suit is pending from 06.06.2005 and the present application has been put into service only to drag on the proceedings and hence, has prayed for dismissal of the application. 4. The trial Court has passed an order dismissing the I.A.No.178 of 2008 on 02.04.2008 inter alia stating that no merit in the petition to implead the proposed party. 5. 4. The trial Court has passed an order dismissing the I.A.No.178 of 2008 on 02.04.2008 inter alia stating that no merit in the petition to implead the proposed party. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner strenuously urges before this Court that the trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the application even without ordering notice to the proposed party and the trial Court ought to have seen that when the main defence of the revision petitioner is that there has been no privity of contract with the respondent, then, notice ought to have been issued to the proposed party and in any event, the presence of proposed party alone will put an end to the controversy involved in the subject matter of the case and therefore, prays for allowing the revision in furtherance of substantial cause of justice. 6. This Court has paid anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. It is to be noted that Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code refers to necessary parties and proper parties. It cannot be said that the main object of the rule is to present multiplicity of actions, though it may incidentally have that effect. But it appears to be a desirable consequence of the rule. Necessary parties are parties who ought to have been joined i.e. parties who are necessary to the constitution of the suit without whom no decree can be passed at all. In order that an individual may be considered a necessary party defendant, there must be a right to some relief against him in respect of the matter involved in the suit. It is stated that a necessary party is one without whom no decree can be made effectively. However, a proper party is one in whose absence, an effective order can be made, but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceedings. 8. It is stated that a necessary party is one without whom no decree can be made effectively. However, a proper party is one in whose absence, an effective order can be made, but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceedings. 8. In the present case, even though the Court has dismissed the I.A.No.178 of 2008 by passing a cryptic order, no merit in the petition to implead the proposed party on the facts and circumstances of the case which float on the surface, this Court is not inclined to allow the civil revision petition and this Court comes to the inevitable conclusion that the proposed party is not a necessary party and by his non-inclusion to the proceedings the constitution of the suit will not be fatal and in that view of the matter, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed in the interest of justice. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.