RUPAM PICTURES Vs. CHAGANLAL GULABCHAND CHANDAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these revision applications the applicant is the same. Opponents Nos. 1 and 2 in this application and opponent No. 1 in the other two applications are different, being the plaintiffs in the three respective suits and the other opponents in all these applications are common defendants in all those suits along with the applicant and all the defendants who are partners in 'M/s Rupam Pictures, Motion Picture Distributors', the applicant. While hearing revision application No. 80 of 1969, the learned advocates on both sides requested that Civil Revision Application No. 29 as well as C.R.A. No. 24 be also heard along with C.R.A. No. 80 of 1969. After calling for the records, we found that opponents Nos. 1, 2, 8, 4 and 5 in C.R.A. No. 29 of 1960 and opponents Nos. 1, 8 and S in C.R.A. No. 24 of 1969 were served and the notices in so far as the other opponents are concerned are not yet received. A few of the opponents against whom the notices were not yet received after service are partners of the contesting applicant Rupam Pictures. The learned Counsel on both sides, therefore, consented that all these three applications should be heard together. Therefore, all these applications are heard together. All these three applications deal with common questions of law as well as facts.

(2.) THE plaintiff opponent No. 1 has filed a suit for recovery of a certain sum against the applicant as well as the other opponents on the ground that he had deposited a certain sum with the defendants on the basis of a deposit receipt and that the defendants did not pay the amount in spite of the demand. Therefore, these three suits are instituted against them.

(3.) THE applicant -defendant and the other opponents contested the claim of the plaintiff in each of these suits. They have pleaded that one Ramchandra Balmukund Heda of Amravati is the real owner of these sums and that the plaintiff is only a benamidar of Ramchandra Balmukund Heda. Their further plea is that the entire sums under the deposit receipts were paid to the said Ramchandra Heda and that entries also were accordingly made in the account -books of Ramchandra Heda. It was, therefore, contended that Ramchandra Heda was a necessary party to these suits and, therefore, he should be made a party to these suits. It was, therefore, prayed by them in an application to the Court that Ramchandra Balmukund Heda should be added as a party. This prayer was rejected by the trial Court. Therefore, the applicant -defendant has come here in revision. The only point, therefore, that arises here is to see whether that order is legal and proper.