H M KASSIM Vs. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the first respondent plaintiff submits that the suit O.S. No. 193 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Kottayam in which the petitioners sought to get themselves impleaded, has been decreed on December 12, 1989. This is not disputed by counsel for the petitioners. The question whether the lower court was right in rejecting the application to implead does not therefore, survive for consideration at this stage. The revision petition is liable to be dismissed on this preliminary ground itself.

(2.) But there is no merit either, in the revision petition. The suit is one for recovery of an amount of over rupees thirty one lakhs from respondents 2 and 3 by sale of the mortgaged properties, which include the establishment where the petitioners are stated to be working. This establishment is a factory "manufacturing" coffee powder. The petitioners are not parties to the mortgage transaction, nor are they liable for the whole or any portion of the amount claimed in the suit. But they sought to get themselves impleaded as parties on the allegation that they are workers in the establishment, their right to work therein was likely to be affected by the sale of the mortgaged properties, including the industrial establishment and therefore, they are proper parties to the suit Reliance was placed on the decision of the High Court of Bombay reported in State Bank of India v. Podar Mills Ltd., AIR 1989 Bombay 215, as also on the decision of the Supreme Court in Workers v. Rohtas Industries Ltd., 1987 (2) SCC 588 . It must be noted however that the petitioners have discreetly avoided taking any responsibility for discharge of the debt due to the plaintiff. Nor have they put forward any scheme for operation of the establishment or for discharge of the plaintiff s dues.

(3.) O.1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides that the court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon, or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order that the name of any person, who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon, and settle, all the questions involved in the suit, be added as party to the suit.