Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 3957 (MAD)

Karuppan v. Karuppannan

2012-09-21

M.VENUGOPAL

body2012
Judgment :- The Petitioner/Proposed Party has filed the present Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 17.12.2009 in I.A.No.345 of 2007 in O.S.No.86 of 2006 passed by the Learned Sub Judge, Attur. 2. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing I.A.No.345 of 2007 (impleading application) in a suit on a pronote which is an essentially a transaction between Respondents 1 and 2 and further that no decree can be passed against the Petitioner. 3. Yet another contention projected by the Petitioner is that the sale of the property belonged to the 2nd Respondent which is not going to anyway affect the decision rendered in the suit. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner cites the decision in Pichaimani V. C.Selvarani and another, 2007 (1) CTC 304 at page 306 in paragraph 6, wherein it is held as follows: "6.I am unable to accept the said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner for the simple reason that the first respondent has laid the Suit against the petitioner for recovery of certain amount due on the promissory note executed by the petitioner in favour of the first respondent. In such a Suit, it has to be considered whether the petitioner has borrowed the money from the first respondent or not; and whether the petitioner has executed the suit promissory note in favour of the first respondent or not. For that purpose, the second respondent being the husband of the first respondent need not be added as party." Further, in the aforesaid decision, at page 307 in paragraph 8, it is observed as follows: "8. The party can be impleaded only when there is a cause of action against him and where his presence is necessary for complete and effectual adjudication of the dispute involved in the Suit. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively. 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 proceeding. Furthermore, a person may be added in a Suit only if he or she ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant, and is not joined so and the issue is that whether enforceable legal right of such party would be affected. Furthermore, a person may be added in a Suit only if he or she ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant, and is not joined so and the issue is that whether enforceable legal right of such party would be affected. A party to the litigation is not entitled to use the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. to implead a person just for the purpose of eliciting a statement from him in whatever form so as to make use of the same as a piece of evidence. In Somasundaram Chettiyar and others V. Balasubramanian, 1998 (1) CTC 626 , this Court has held as follows: 'A person does not become a necessary party merely because he has some evidence relevant to the case on hand. A necessary witness is different from a necessary party'." 5. The 1st Respondent/Petitioner has filed a suit O.S.No.86 of 2006 on the file of the trial Court for a recovery of sum of Rs.1,02,600/-with subsequent interest at 9% per annum along with costs from the 2nd Respondent/Defendant (principal sum of Rs.90,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from 02.06.2005 to 22.12.2006 as averred in the Plaint). In I.A.No.442 of 2006, the properties have been attached on 05.07.2007 and the same was duly informed to the Sub Registrar on 30.07.2007. 6. In the affidavit in I.A.No.345 of 2007 filed by the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff, it is averred that the sale deed dated 26.12.2006 between the 2nd Respondent/Defendant and the Revision Petitioner/ Proposed Party is not valid in law because of the fact that the sale deed executed by the 2nd Respondent/Defendant is a sham and nominal one with a view to cheat the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff. 7. Thetrial Court has come to a conclusion that the Proposed Party viz., the Revision Petitioner has purchased the properties which have been attached and if any decree is to be obtained in O.S.No.86 of 2006, then, in the interest of the Revision Petitioner/Proposed Party, the same will have to be executed. In that view of the matter, the trial Court has allowed the impleading application. 8. It is not in dispute that Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code is mainly concerned with the impleading of a party which is not a matter of law, but it is only a matter of fact. In that view of the matter, the trial Court has allowed the impleading application. 8. It is not in dispute that Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code is mainly concerned with the impleading of a party which is not a matter of law, but it is only a matter of fact. It is true that a Court of Law has got wide powers to strike out or at a particular party at any stage of the proceedings before the conclusion of the trial. A Proposed Party must not only be a necessary party but also a necessary party for an effective and efficacious adjudication of the disputes involved in the pending suit. 9. Under the following contingencies, a person may be joined as a party to the suit: (a) When he ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant, and is not joined so; or (b) When, without his presence, the question in the suit cannot be completely decided. 10.Even as per the object of Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code is that to bring on record all persons who are parties to the dispute relating to the subject matter so that the dispute can be decided in their presence and avoiding inconvenience and also any protraction of the matter indefinitely. 11. On going through the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.345 of 2007 dated 17.12.2009, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court has exercised its discretion in a judicious manner in impleading the Revision Petitioner/Proposed Party for an effective and efficacious adjudication of the controversies between the parties. In short, this Court does not find any material irregularity or patent illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition fails. 12. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.345 of 2007 in O.S.No.86 of 2006 dated 17.12.2009 is affirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this Revision. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.