SARASWATHI Vs. P SHANMUGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petitioner/first respondent/ plaintiff has filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 12.08.2008 in I.A.No.813 of 2008 in O.S.No.416 of 2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Coimbatore at Tiruppur in allowing the application filed by the first respondent/proposed party under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code and directing him to be impleaded as 4th defendant in the suit.

(2.) THE trial Court while passing orders in I.A.No.813 of 2008 has inter alia observed that 'the execution of a document itself is to be proved by means of evidence etc. and in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation in respect of agreement of sale and also to consider the claim of proposed party in the present suit itself, ordered the impleading of the proposed party as 4th defendant in the suit and after impleading the proposed party has been permitted to raise his plea by way of counter claim by paying necessary court fee and resultantly, allowed the said application.'

(3.) HE also cites the decision M.K. Navennetham Naidu V. Gangiah Naidu and others (AIR 1961 Madras 376) whereby it is held that 'the real owner is not the legal representative of a benamidar within the meaning of S.2(11) of Civil Procedure Code and that a benamidar can maintain an action in his own name and so long as the benamidar does not purport to sue in a representative capacity, the real owner cannot come in on his death under O.22, R.3 of Civil Procedure Code.' Yet another decision Ajmera Housing Corporation V. Amrit M. Patel (AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2542) has been relied on the side of petitioner wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has refused to interfere with the impugned order of High Court since the issues involved as to the assignment of rights ought to be thrashed out in properly constituted suit and not in an appeal against interlocutory order and any decision would prejudice developer in case he files separate suit. Further, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that as per Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, an undisclosed principal cannot be impleaded as a party in the case and that the trial Court has not gone into the aspect and therefore, the order of the trial Court suffers from serious infirmity and needs to be set aside by this Court.