RAMASWAMI NAICKER Vs. MINOR RANGANAYAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against the order of the District munsiff of Sattur, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for impleading the respondents under Order I, rule 10, of the Civil Procedure Code The petitioner had dealings with Venkatarama Naicker, the grandfather of the respondents. As Venkatarama Naicker died, the plaintiff filed O. S. No. 239 of 1952 on the file of the District Court of Sattur for recovery of the amount alleged to be due by him from his brothers, venkatakrishna Naicker and Thathayya Naicker, his legal representatives. Pending the suit he filed an application under Order I, rule 10, of the Code of civil Procedure, praying that the respondents should be added as defendants on the allegation that they had intermeddled with the estate of Venkatarama naicker, collected some amounts and were trying to collect other amounts due to the estate. They denied in their counter that they intermeddled with the estate. They also stated that they are not the legal representatives of their deceased grandfather. The learned District Munsiff was satisfied that they were not intermeddlers and dismissed the application Mr. Champakesa Ayyangar contended that the respondents were proper parties and the suit could be decided satisfactorily only in their presence and therefore the learned Munsiff was wrong in dismissing the petition. In a suit for recovery of money, I cannot see how the respondents, who are admittedly not the legal representatives of the deceased, can be made parties. The fact that they are assignees of some insurance amounts from the deceased cannot be a ground for making them as parties to a suit for recovery of money from the deceased. The fact that if a decree was given in favour of the petitioner, he might be in a better position to realise that amount cannot conceivably be a ground for making the assignees as parties to the suit. The power to add parties to a suit is not intended to facilitate execution. It would be invoked only for effectively and finally disposing of the questions that arise in the suit. The only question would be whether any amounts were due by the deceased to the petitioner. For disposing of that question the presence of respondents is not necessary. Therefore they are neither proper nor necessary parties to the actionthe order of the lower court is right and the revision is therefore dismissed with costs Petition dismissed.