MADAME CANISIA CEIZER Vs. ALTAR HUSSAIN KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioner Smt Madame Canisia Ceizer, aggrieved by the order made in I.A.No.1224 of 1994 in O.S.No.361 of 1994 on the file of the I Senior Civil Judge/ City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The petitioner as plaintiff moved I.A.No. 1224 of 1994 in O.S.No. 361 of 1994 praying for impleading of respondents 2 to 5 herein under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil procedure (for short "the Code") on the ground that the proposed parties also were declared as co-debtors by the Switzerland Courts and it is necessary to implead them as defendants 2 to 5 in the suit to decide all the disputes involved in the said suit. Several details were narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the application. The said application was opposed and the learned I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad by order dated 13-03-2002, had dismissed the said application with costs and aggrieved by the same, the present petitioner-plaintiff had preferred the present civil revision petition.

(2.) Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned counsel representing the petitioner had submitted that the learned I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Judge, Hyderabad, had definitely gone wrong in dismissing the application to implead the parties. The learned counsel also pointed out that the observation made by the learned Judge that prima facie case for impleading the parties had not been made out is definitely unsustainable. The learned Counsel also would maintain that though in the plaint, it was stated that in relation to the contract between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant in paras 11,12 and 13 of the plaint, several details had been narrated and the certified copies of the proceedings of the Courts at Switzerland also had been specified in detail at para 11. The learned counsel also pointed out that the observation made by the learned Judge that there is no judgment of the foreign Court as the foundation for the suit claim also cannot be sustained since along with the plaint, the judgment of the Switzerland Court was in fact filed. The learned counsel also submitted that it is not in controversy that the proposed parties-respondents 2 to 5 are the real brothers of the 1st respondent- original defendant in the suit who are shown as co-debtors as per the subsequent orders of the foreign Court. The learned Counsel also submitted that it is not as though this aspect was not pleaded at all but, no doubt it could have been pleaded in a better way giving further particulars in the plaint and that by itself does not mean that the proposed parties are unnecessary parties to the suit. The learned counsel in all fairness submitted that it is no doubt true that the application was moved at a belated stage and that itself cannot be a ground for refusing the relief of impleadment, if otherwise, the Court is satisfied that the presence of these parties definitely is essential for the purpose of adjudicating the matters in controversy between the parties. The learned counsel also had pointed out to Sections 13 and 14 of the Code and had maintained that the validity, binding nature or otherwise of a foreign judgment may have to be decided depending upon the satisfaction of several conditions and these are all matters to be decided at the stage of disposing of the main suit and the counsel concluded that it is a fit matter where the parties are to be brought on record for the purpose of the complete and effective adjudication of the matters in controversy between the parties.

(3.) Mrs. Rama was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court. The learned Amicus Curiae had drawn the attention of this Court to Sections 13 and 14 of the Code and also to Section 21 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act'). The learned counsel contended that in the light of the averments made in support of the application and the stand taken in the counter, it is clear that the suit is for recovery of money and the application is moved beyond the period of limitation. The learned counsel also contended that unless the conditions specified under Section 21 of the Act are satisfied the application which would result in other consequences may not be allowed. The learned counsel also had placed reliance on B. Satyanarayana Murthy v. Venkata Rao, the judgment of this Court made in CMP. No. 7497 and 7498 of 1976 in A.S.No. 540 of 1973, dated 15-09-1976 and also on Gummidi Ramulu v. Gadey Srinivasa Rao.