T LEONARD THANGAPRAKASAM Vs. C RAMAIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.Maninarayanan, for petitioner and Mr.P. Prabhakar, for respondent.

(2.) THIS revision is directed against the order in I. A. No.256 of 1994 in O.S. No.291 of 1992 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, dated 29.6.1994, allowing the petition underO.8-A, C.P.C. That application was filed by the defendant in the suit. The petitioner/ plaintiff filed O.S. No.291 of 1992 against the sole defendant (respondent herein) for recovery of a sum of Rs.18,000 towards principal together with interest at 12% per annum, in all amounting to Rs.26,462. It is the specific case of the petitioner herein that the respondent/ defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.18,000 from the petitioner and executed a promissory note at Tanjore on 12.9.1989 agreeing to repay the said sum with interest at 12% per annum to the petitioner or to his order on demand. In spite of repeated demands, the respondent has not chosen to pay any sum due on the promissory note and therefore the petitioner gave lawyer's notice on 4.4.1991 which was received by the defendant on 10.4.1991. But there is no reply from the defendant. It is also stated that the respondent is not entitled to the benefits of any of the Debt Relief Act, since the respondent is employed as a clerk in Union Bank of India and is getting about Rs.50,000 per annum by way of salary.

(3.) THE respondent thereupon filed LA. No.264 of 1994 under 0.8-A and Sec.151, C.P.C., for impleading the said Sukumaran and Mrs. Meena, wife of Sukumaran as defendants 2 and 3 in the suit. According to the respondent all his dealings are only with one Sukumaran and he received the amounts and cheques from the respondent and therefore he is a necessary party in this case. It is further averred that the respondent/ defendant is entitled to contribution and indemnity by him. Moreover Sukumaran's wife Meena also got dealings by issuing a withdrawal form with the respondent herein and she is also a necessary party to the proceedings. According to the respondent their presence is necessary for the purpose of real determination of the issue in this case and in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings the presence of the proposed party is necessary and the presence of the proposed parties does not alter the nature of the case or the cause of action.