Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2988 (MAD)

V. Susila v. R. Murugan

2012-07-13

R.BANUMATHI

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner before the Sub-Court, Panruti in I.A.No.272 of 2008 in O.S.No.86 of 2008 under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C and declining to implead the 2nd respondent as the 2nd defendant in the suit, the defendant has preferred this civil revision petition. 2. The first respondent filed O.S.No.86 of 2008 on the file of Sub Court, Panruti for recovery of money based on promissory note. Revision Petitioner/defendant resisted the suit contending that she has not borrowed the amount and that she has not executed the suit promissory note. Stating that one Thayalan and the 2nd respondent - Arumugam are partners of Anantha Finance and Sri Buvanesware Finance and that only 2nd respondent had obtained the signature of the defendant in blank promissory notes and that the 2nd respondent is a necessary party, revision petitioner/defendant has filed application in I.A.No.272 of 2008 under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. By the impugned order dated 8.7.2009, the said application came to be dismissed, which is challenged in this revision petition. 3. The revision petitioner is represented by learned counsel Mr.P.Suresh appearing on behalf of Mr.K.Moorthy, counsel on record. The respondents are represented by learned counsel Mr.R.Subramanian. 4. Case of revision petitioner is that one Thayalan and 2nd respondent are partners in Anantha Finance and Sri Buvanesware Finance and that the revision petitioner/defendant and her husband subscribed many chits run by the said Finance Company, in which Thayalan and 2nd respondent are partners of the Company. Further case of revision petitioner is that she and her husband are the successful auction bidders in the said chits and while disbursing the chit amount to the revision petitioner, the 2nd respondent proposed to be impleaded had obtained their signatures in blank promissory notes for the purpose of security. Further case of revision petitioner is that on the recommendation of the husband of revision petitioner, Thayalan and 2nd respondent have sanctioned loan to Sathiamoorthy and that the said Sathiamoorthy has not discharged the said loan, which again caused a rift between the revision petitioner and the 2nd respondent. Further case of revision petitioner is that on the recommendation of the husband of revision petitioner, Thayalan and 2nd respondent have sanctioned loan to Sathiamoorthy and that the said Sathiamoorthy has not discharged the said loan, which again caused a rift between the revision petitioner and the 2nd respondent. The revision petitioner further alleged that inspite of their request the 2nd respondent refused to hand over the blank promissory notes in which the signature of the revision petitioner were obtained and that the 2nd respondent has concocted the promissory notes in the name of 1st respondent and the suit came to be filed and therefore for full and complete adjudication, 2nd respondent is a necessary party to the suit. 5. The suit filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff is based on promissory note. The plaintiff is dominus litis, who has filed the suit against the revision petitioner/defendant, who is alleged to have signed in the promissory note. The averments made in the impleading petition are more in the nature of defence adopted by the revision petitioner/defendant. For establishing the defence put forth by the revision petitioner/defendant, the 2nd respondent need not be impleaded as a defendant in the suit. Even without impleading the 2nd respondent in the suit, it is always open to the revision petitioner/ defendant toestablish the defence by examining the witnesses and also adducing evidence. The plaintiff, being dominus litis, the defendant cannot seek to implead the 2nd respondent as the defendant in the suit. The learned Subordinate judge rightly dismissed the application for impleading the 2nd respondent and the order does not suffer from any perversity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the civil revision petition is dismissed giving liberty to the revision petitioner to file additional written statement putting forth their defence. The revision petitioner is also at liberty to adduce evidence to substantiate her defence plea put forth in the impleading petition and also at liberty to summon the 2nd defendant, at appropriate stage, if need be so. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.