S SENTHI PRABU Vs. D ASOKAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petitions raise an interesting issue as to the right of a subsequent creditor to implead himself in the suit which is framed as a representative capacity suit.

(2.) The proposed plaintiff is the revision petitioner in all the three revision petitions. The three revision petitions that are before this Court for consideration are orders of the learned II Additional District Munsif, Erode in the following interlocutory application in O.S.No.668 of 2004:

(3.) To appreciate the issue on hand, it is necessary to briefly narrated the suit and the subsequent events. The first respondent herein had filed the suit in O.S.No.778 of 2001 on the file of the Sub Court, Erode subsequently transferred to file of the II Additional District Munsif, Erode renumbered as O.S.No.668 of 2004, describing himself in the short cause title in the suit as D.Asokan, on behalf of himself and all other creditors of E.P.Subramaniam and similarly in the long cause title. The first defendant had contended that he had advanced loan on the security of a promissory note to the second defendant on 29.08.2000 (Rs. 50,000/-) and 16.11.2000 (Rs. 50,000/-); that in spite of several demands the second defendant had not repaid the amounts and that the second respondent was indebted to several creditors who were described in Schedule B to the plaint. He would further contend that the second respondent had fraudulently brought about sale deeds in favour of the defendants 3 to 7, in order to deprive the creditors of their dues and that despite issuing a legal notice, the second respondent had not come forward to settle the dues. Though the first respondent had described himself as filing the suit on behalf of all creditors, he had not sought the permission of the Court as mandated under the provision of Order 1 Rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure.