KUNJA Vs. NATARAJA KOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioner filed I.A. 23 of 1991 in O.S. 321 of 1985 of the Munsiffs Court, Chittoor to implead her as a defendant. That petition was rejected by the Court below.

(2.) In the suit a party-receiver was appointed. As there were allegations against the party-receiver, the Court removed her and appointed an advocate-receiver. It was at that juncture that the revised petitioner filed the petition to implead her in the suit on the ground that she is in possession of a portion of the property and that she is an interested party in the proceedings. The Munsiff rejected the petition holding that the plaintiffs do not seek any relief against the revision petitioner and that she has not established even prima facie that she has any interest in the property claimed by her.

(3.) The short question that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is with regard to the remedy open to a party who alleges interference of his possession of property by the Receiver. Can he insist upon getting himself impleaded in the suit on the pretext of protecting his interest in the property Remedy open to such a party is not certainty to get himself impleaded in the suit. His remedy lies in making an application to the Court which appointed the Receiver highlighting his right in the property where upon the Court will embark upon a summary enquiry. Or he may institute a separate suit with Receiver on the party array after getting necessary sanction from the Court that appointed the Receiver to establish his right in the property. [See Raghavan Nair v. Appu Kidavu ( 1979 KLT 458 )]. Without doing any of these things, he cannot insist upon being impleaded in the suit As the revision petitioner's remedy lies elsewhere, her attempt to get herself impleaded in the suit cannot be allowed. The Trial Court was justified is dismissing LA 23 of 1991.