TABLETS INDIA LIMITED Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is the third defendant in O.S. No. 1041 of 1987 made an application under Order VIII-A, Rule 8 of the Court to issue notice to the first defendant in the suit under the said provision and Order V1II-A to decide the right to be indemnified.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the suit is one which involves an issue regarding the petitioners liability for the suit claim and the right to be indemnified by the defendants 1 and 2 and that has to be tried and necessary relief has to be given in favour of the applicant to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It was resisted by the plaintiff. The lower Court rejected the application only on the ground that such an application cannot be maintained against defendants 1 and 2 as they are already parties to the suit. Such an approach is not sustainable.

(3.) Rule 1 in Order VIII-A, the Civil Procedure Code is an exception to the well-known principle that the plaintiff is the dominant litus in a suit, it is to be observed that once a party is recognised as a third party, directions for contribution and indemnity against him follow as a matter of course, if such a claim if possible in the eye of law.