S NAGARAJAN Vs. MARIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff has preferred this revision against the order dated 19. 1. 1996 in LA. No. 707 of 1995 in O. S. No. 94 of 1995 on the file of Sub Court , ramanathapuram. THE said I. A. was by a third party to the suit, the 1 st respondent herein, for impleading herself in the suit as 2nd defendant. THE 2nd respondent herein is the defendant- Municipality in the suit. By the abovesaid impugned order, the LA. was allowed, and aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this revision.

(2.) PURSUANT to the notice of motion ordered on 23. 2. 1996. I have heard both the counsel.

(3.) KRISHNAN v. K. Dharmar and others, 1995 T. L. N. J. 74 turned on different facts and the said decision will have no application to the present facts. The suit therein, in which the impleading petition was filed, was for a declaration that the defendant had no right to run the rice mill in the suit property in view of the permit given to the plaintiff alone, and the defendant therein filed the impleading petition for impleading certain persons as additional defendants in the suit on the ground that the defendant therein had filed another suit for in respect of the same subject matter, against the plaintiff, and those persons, and to enable the defendant therein to have a joint trial of both the suits, those persons had to be impleaded. While dismissing the said impleading petition, this Court, relied on Ramesh Hiranand kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, and others, A. I. R. 1992 S. C. W. 846, where the Supreme Court, while interpreting the words' ;. . . any person. . . whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit' ; in O. 1. Rule 10 (2), C. P. C.- (such person being known as proper party) - has held that a person to be impleaded as such a party to the suit should have direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation. The facts of the said supreme Court case were as follows: The plaintiff therein was in possession of a service station erected on a land held by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation limited as a lessee. The possession of the plaintiff was as licensee of the hindustan Petroleum Company under a dealership agreement. The plaintiff put up two constructions on the terrace of the property. Notice of demolition was issued by the municipality on the ground that it was an unauthorised construction. The plaintiff challenged the same in an injunction suit. Hindustan petroleum Corporation Limited sought impleadment in the suit. The Supreme court, holding that the said corporation, had no direct interest in the subject matter of litigation and was not even a proper party, dismissed the impleading petition.