UTHAMAN CHETTIAR Vs. T K THIAGARAJA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by one Utharaan Chettiar to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Pudukottai, dated 3-8-1954 in I.A. No. 509 of 1953 in O.S. No. 95 of 1952, dismissing that petition which had been filed under O. 8-A, R. 1, C.P.C., for granting leave to issue a third party notice to one Lakshmanan Chettiar. The suit itself was one for recovering a sum of Rs. 3,500 on a promissory note executed by the petitioner in favour of the plaintiff Thyagaraja Pillai.

(2.) I have perused the entire records, and heard the learned counsel on both sides. Mr. A. Sundaram Iyer, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the lower court went wrong in not distinguishing between justifiable cases of third party notice and frivolous or vexatious cases. According to him, though the promissory note was executed only by the petitioner, be could prove that Lakshmanan Chettiar, his sister's son-in-law would be liable for half the amount, if decreed and it was unjustifiable to drive him to a separate suit for contribution or indemnity.

(3.) The promissory note in this suit did not recite that the promissory note was being executed by the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 3,500 duo by him and Lakshmanan Chettiar jointly under the contract of sale. If there were such a recital, the petitioner might have had a good case for leave to issue a third party notice. Lakshmanan Chettiar need not have been a joint executor of the promissory note as contended by the plaintiff as in that case, a third party notice would be meaningless as he would be a co-defendant.