PANEERSELVAM Vs. RAMALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and final order passed by the Court below dismissing the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to add the second respondent as the proposed third defendant in the suit.

(2.) The first respondent / plaintiff has filed a suit against the petitioners seeking for the relief of recovery of money based on the promissory notes. A written statement was filed by the petitioners and they have taken a very specific stand that the pronotes that are relied upon by the plaintiff are misused and already the entire loan amount has been repaid.

(3.) The case was at the stage of trial and at that stage, the petitioners filed the present application seeking to implead the second respondent as the third defendant in the suit. This application was filed mainly on the ground that he is a proper and necessary party in the suit and it was the second respondent to whom the blank pronotes were given by the petitioners and this pronote is now being misused by the first respondent / plaintiff.