KARUPPAN PARTY Vs. KARUPPANNAN AND PERIASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner/Proposed Party has filed the present Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 17.12.2009 in I.A. No. 345 of 2007 in O.S. No. 86 of 2006 passed by the Learned Sub Judge, Attur. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing I.A. No. 345 of 2007 (impleading application) in a suit on a pronote which is an essentially a transaction between Respondents 1 and 2 and further that no decree can be passed against the Petitioner.

(2.) YET another contention projected by the Petitioner is that the sale of the property belonged to the 2nd Respondent which is not going to anyway affect the decision rendered in the suit.

(3.) THE 1st Respondent/Petitioner has filed a suit O.S. No. 86 of 2006 on the file of the trial Court for a recovery of sum of Rs. 1,02,600/ - with subsequent interest at 9% per annum along with costs from the 2nd Respondent/Defendant (principal sum of Rs. 90,000/ - with interest at 9% per annum from 02.06.2005 to 22.12.2006 as averred in the Plaint). In I.A. No. 442 of 2006, the properties have been attached on 05.07.2007 and the same was duly informed to the Sub Registrar on 30.07.2007.