P ASHOKA Vs. NEHRU EDWIN RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revisions are preferred against the order of the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, dated 25. 02. 2003, made in i. A. No. 17501/2002 in O. S. No. 3572/2000, allowing the petition filed under Or. 1, r. 10 (2) CPC ordering impleading of the proposed parties/respondents 2 and 3 as the Defendants 2 and 3. Plaintiff and the proposed parties have separately preferred these revisions.

(2.) O. S. No. 3572/ 2002: - This suit was filed by the Plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 2 ,00,500 /- on the basis of the Promissory Note in favour of the Plaintiff. Case of the Plaintiff is that the Defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs. 2 ,00,000 /- from one Rajini Swaminathan on 11. 3. 1997. Inspite of repeated demands, the Defendant has not paid the amount to the said Rajini Swaminathan. On 11. 10. 1999, the suit promissory note was assigned in favour of the Plaintiff for consideration. The Plaintiff had issued a legal Notice on 25. 02. 2000 demanding the payment of money. The Defendant received the notice and sent a reply with false allegations. Hence the plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 2 ,00,500 /-with interest at 12% p. a.

(3.) THE Plaintiff has resisted the application for impleading his mother and sister and filed a counter statement contending that the Plaintiff having admitted the execution of the promissory note is bound to prove the non passing of consideration for the promissory note. According to him, his mother Kamala and sister Mangammal have nothing to do with the borrowing of the amount, covered by the promissory note executed by the Defendant in favour of Rajini Swaminathan. It is further alleged that the defendant having admitted the execution of the promissory note, the Defendant has to prove the failure of consideration rebutting the presumption of passing consideration under the Negotiable Instruments Act. THE mother and sister of the Plaintiff are not at all necessary parties much less for effective adjudication.