K RAGHUPATHY Vs. K R PANNEERSELVAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petitioner/defendant has filed this revision as against the order passed in I.A.No.178 of 2008 in O.S.No.205 of 2005 by the Principal Sub Judge, Salem in dismissing the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) THE revision petitioner/defendant has filed I.A.No.178 of 2008 inter alia stating that he has never seen the respondent/plaintiff and never borrowed any amount and that he has not executed the pronote in favour of the plaintiff and that he was employed as a driver in the proposed party finance company and the proprietor T.K. Kuppusamy has obtained his signatures in the blank stamped pronote papers, white papers and further that the cashier has opened account in the State Bank of Mysore and obtained a cheque book in the name of the revision petitioner and has obtained his signatures in 10 blank cheques and these signatures were procured for the said chit and that the amount due under the chit was not paid and the controversy in the suit can be agitated only if the proposed party is also a party to the suit and therefore, the proposed party is a necessary party for disposal of the suit and has prayed to implead the proposed party P.S.K. Finance chits and Finance Ltd., by Managing Partner, Big Bazaar Street, Salem-1 as second defendant in the suit.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner strenuously urges before this Court that the trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the application even without ordering notice to the proposed party and the trial Court ought to have seen that when the main defence of the revision petitioner is that there has been no privity of contract with the respondent, then, notice ought to have been issued to the proposed party and in any event, the presence of proposed party alone will put an end to the controversy involved in the subject matter of the case and therefore, prays for allowing the revision in furtherance of substantial cause of justice.