JUDGMENT : (Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order in I.A.No.57 of 2011 in O.S.No.53 of 2010, dated 02.07.2012 by the learned Sub Court, Sivakasi. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and final order passed by the Court below dismissing the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to add the second respondent as the proposed third defendant in the suit. 2. The first respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit against the petitioners seeking for the relief of recovery of money based on the promissory notes. A written statement was filed by the petitioners and they have taken a very specific stand that the pronotes that are relied upon by the plaintiff are misused and already the entire loan amount has been repaid. 3. The case was at the stage of trial and at that stage, the petitioners filed the present application seeking to implead the second respondent as the third defendant in the suit. This application was filed mainly on the ground that he is a proper and necessary party in the suit and it was the second respondent to whom the blank pronotes were given by the petitioners and this pronote is now being misused by the first respondent/plaintiff. 4. The Court below has dismissed the application on the ground that the second respondent, who has sought to be impleaded as a defendant in the suit is neither a necessary party nor a proper party and the petitioners cannot seek for impleading him as a defendant only based on the defence that has been taken by them in the suit. The Court below categorically found that the petitioners can always call this second respondent and examine him as a witness and establish their defence. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the entire transaction took place only between the petitioners and the proposed third defendant and there is absolutely no privity of contract between the petitioners and the first respondent/plaintiff. The learned counsel submitted that the proposed third defendant is a necessary party in this suit and the present suit cannot be effectively disposed of without he being a party in this suit. The learned counsel submitted that the proposed third defendant is a necessary party in this suit and the present suit cannot be effectively disposed of without he being a party in this suit. The learned counsel submitted that no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff, if the proposed third defendant is made as a party in the suit. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent/plaintiff submitted that the entire attempt made by the petitioners is only to drag on the proceedings and the suit was filed in the year 2012 and it is kept pending for the last nine years without any progress. The learned counsel submitted that the first respondent/plaintiff is the dominus litis and it is for him to decide as to who should be made a defendant in the suit. The plaintiff cannot be forced to make any one as a party in the suit, unless he is a proper or necessary party. The learned counsel submitted that the Court below has given cogent reasons for dismissing the application and there is absolutely no ground to interfere with the same. 7. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record. 8. The main ground on which the application has been filed under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure by the petitioners is that the petitioners had a financial transaction only with the proposed third defendant and a blank promissory note was given to him and the same has been misused by the plaintiff. Further ground that has been raised is that there is no privity of contract between the petitioners and the plaintiff in this case. 9. It is now a settled principle of law that insofar as the impleading of parties to the suit is concerned, he has to be a necessary party or a proper party to the proceedings. Necessary party is one without whom no effective order can be made. Proper party is one whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision. Unless these requirements are satisfied, the plaintiff cannot be forced to add anyone as a party, since he is the dominus litis. 9. Necessary party is one without whom no effective order can be made. Proper party is one whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision. Unless these requirements are satisfied, the plaintiff cannot be forced to add anyone as a party, since he is the dominus litis. 9. The facts of the present case shows that the petitioners have taken a defence to the effect that they had the financial transaction only with the proposed defendant and not with the plaintiff. This defence taken by the petitioners should be established in the trial. For this purpose, the proposed defendant must be called as a witness in the suit and the defence has to be established. A person having relevant evidence may be a necessary witness and he cannot be termed as a proper party. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Somasundaram Chettiar and others Vs. Balasubramanian reported in 1998 (I) CTC 626 . The relevant portions of the judgment are extracted hereunder: “10. It is settled law that the plaintiff may choose to implead only those persons as defendants against whom he wishes to proceed with. However, it is open to the Court to add, at any stage of the suit, a necessary party in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon the questions involved in the suit. Thus, the question of impleadment of party has to be decided under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. which provides that only a necessary or proper party may be added. 11. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be effectively made. A proper part is one whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision of question involved in the proceedings. Therefore, the additional of parties thus, would depend upon the judicial discretion which has to be exercised, in view of the facts and circumstances of a particular case. 12. The person to be joined must be one whose presence is necessary as party. What makes a necessary party is not merely that he has relevant evidence to give on some of the questions involved, that would only made him as necessary witness.” 10. It will also be relevant to rely upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Pichaimani Vs. C.Selvarani and another reported in 2007 (1) CTC 304 . What makes a necessary party is not merely that he has relevant evidence to give on some of the questions involved, that would only made him as necessary witness.” 10. It will also be relevant to rely upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Pichaimani Vs. C.Selvarani and another reported in 2007 (1) CTC 304 . The relevant portions of the judgment are extracted hereunder: “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 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 Vs. 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.” 9. Thus, on the pleadings that have been raised by the petitioner in the affidavit in support of his application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C., the petitioner has not made out a case that the second respondent is a proper and necessary party for adjudicating the Suit between the petitioner and the first respondent. As said already, the Suit has been laid by the first respondent on the basis of the promissory note executed by the petitioner in favour of the first respondent and hence, the issue that has to be decided is whether the petitioner, has executed the suit promissory note in favour of the first respondent after receiving the money or not. As said already, the Suit has been laid by the first respondent on the basis of the promissory note executed by the petitioner in favour of the first respondent and hence, the issue that has to be decided is whether the petitioner, has executed the suit promissory note in favour of the first respondent after receiving the money or not. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for bearing on the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Hence, I am not dealing with each and every case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner.” 11. In the considered view of this Court, the second respondent at the best can only be a witness in this case in order to establish the defence that has been taken by the petitioners. He is neither a necessary nor a proper party and therefore, the Court below was perfectly right in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Court below and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 12. In the result, the fair and final order passed by the Court below in I.A.No.57 of 2011, is hereby sustained and this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. The Court below is directed to complete the proceedings in O.S.No.53 of 2010, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.