RUGMANI Vs. CHELLAPPA RAWTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these Civil Miscellaneous Petitions the question is raised whether a party could be impleaded in the Civil Revision Petition after the expiry of the period prescribed for filing the Civil Revision Petition. The Civil Revision Petitions have arisen from the order of the learned Munsiff of Palghat upholding the plea of the garnishee that the amounts in his possession which belonged to the judgment debtor were already disbursed to him. The decree holder who is the Revision Petitioner, sought to attach Rs. 200/- and Rs 300/- (Rs. 200 is covered by C. R. P. 617/68 and Rs. 300 by C. R. P. 610/68) which represented advance rent payable to the judgment debtor but retained by the garnishee. But the garnishee contended that no amount was available with him and that whatever was due to the judgment debtor had already been paid. This plea was accepted by the learned Munsiff and the prayer for attachment was rejected. It is against that order that the present Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred. But in the Civil Revision Petitions however, the petitioner omitted to implead the garnishee even though the garnishee is a necessary party to the proceeding. So, the above Civil Miscellaneous Petitions were filed to get him impleaded but the prayer is opposed in both the petitions on the ground that the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions having been preferred after the expiry of the time allowed for filing the Civil Revision Petitions are not maintainable. The Civil Revision Petitions were filed on the 20th of May 1968 but the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions were filed only on 9-7-1968. On the 9th of July 1968 the Civil Revision Petition, if had been filed, it would have been time barred, This position is covered by authorities and the consensus of judicial opinion seems to be in favour of allowing the impleadment. In Girish Chander Lahiri v. Sasi Sekharaswar Roy (ILR 1906 Cal. - Vol. 33 - 329) it was observed:

(2.) In Padarath Mahton v. Hitan Singh ( AIR 1924 Patna 773) a Division Bench of the Patna High Court held:

(3.) In Swaminatha v. Gopalaswami ( AIR 1937 Mad. 741 ) it was held under similar circumstances that: