P V GEORGE Vs. BANK OF MADURAI LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is against the order of the Principal Sub Judge, Quilon in IA 2726/84 in O. S.249/83. Revision petitioner is the 2nd defendant. 2nd defendant filed the application under O.1 R.10(2) of the C.P.C. for impleading the Export Credit And Guarantee Corporation Ltd., Bombay (E. C. G. C. Ltd.) as an additional defendant. The learned Sub Judge dismissed the petition holding that there is no necessity at all to implead the additional defendant.

(2.) The revision petitioner filed written statement along with defendants 3 to 5. Issues were framed on 21-7-1984 and the case was posted for trial in the special list on 1-10-1984. In the meanwhile, revision petitioner filed IA 2726/84 to implead E. C. G. C. Ltd., Bombay as additional defendant.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that from the pleadings of the plaintiff as well as that of the defendants and the documents produced by the plaintiff it could be seen that E. C. G. C. Ltd. has expressly guaranteed protection to the plaintiff Bank against losses due to the non payment by exporters (defendants) on account of their default and that the E. C. G. C. Ltd. is bound to pay under the policy 3/4th of the loss in the case of post-shipment Export Credit Guarantee, Export Finance Guarantee and Export Performance Guarantee and 2/3rd of the loss in others. According to the revision petitioner, substantial part of the amount claimed in the plaint ought to be paid by the Export Credit and Guarantee Corporation Ltd. and therefore the said Corporation is a necessary party in the suit. Counsel submitted that in the written statement the necessity to implead E. C. G. C. Ltd. has been clearly stated and therefore it cannot be said that the petition has been filed only to prolong the proceedings. Learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent contended that the Trial Court's order does not call for any interference by this court as it is not fair or proper to compel the plaintiff who is the master of his case to implead third parties. Counsel submitted that if at all the revision petitioner is entitled to be compensated by E. C. G. C. Ltd. he should file proper suit against it and he should not unnecessarily complicate the issues involved in this suit between the plaintiff and defendants. Counsel for the respondent submitted that impleading E. C. G. C. Ltd. will not in any way be prejudicial to the plaintiff and at any rate to avoid multiplicity of proceedings the court below ought to have allowed the petition.