Case Note & Summary
The revision petitioner, K. Balasathiya Narayanan, filed a civil suit (O.S. No.176 of 2019) before the Principal District Court, Erode, against the first respondent, K. Manokar, seeking recovery of Rs.20,86,000/- with interest. The plaintiff alleged that the first respondent borrowed Rs.20,00,000/- on 02.02.2019 for his garment business (M/s. Shastivel Garments) and issued a post-dated cheque which was dishonoured due to account closure. The plaintiff also filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A. No.507 of 2019 under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC to implead the second respondent, Meena, who is the wife of the first respondent and the proprietor of Sri Shastivel Garments. The trial court allowed the application on 17.10.2022, holding that the proposed party is necessary for effective adjudication. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court examined the scope of Order I Rule 10(2) CPC and noted that the provision allows the court to add any person as a party whose presence is necessary for the complete and final determination of all questions involved in the suit. The court observed that the loan was availed for the business run by the second respondent, and the first respondent is her husband. Therefore, the presence of the second respondent would enable the court to effectively adjudicate the dispute and avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The High Court found no illegality or perversity in the trial court's order and dismissed the revision petition, confirming the impleadment.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order I Rule 10(2) - Impleadment of Parties - Necessary and Proper Party - The court considered whether the wife of the defendant, who is the proprietor of the business concern from which the loan was taken, is a necessary or proper party to the suit for recovery of money based on a dishonoured cheque. The trial court allowed the impleadment, and the High Court upheld the order, holding that the presence of the proposed party is necessary for the complete and effective adjudication of the dispute, as the loan was availed for the business run by the wife. (Paras 1-11) B) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Supervisory Jurisdiction - The revision petition was filed under Article 227 challenging the trial court's order allowing impleadment. The High Court held that the trial court's order was not perverse or without jurisdiction, and thus no interference was warranted under Article 227. (Paras 1, 11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in allowing the impleadment of the second respondent (wife of the defendant) as a party to the suit under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, when the suit was for recovery of money against the defendant alone.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the civil revision petition, confirming the trial court's order dated 17.10.2022 allowing impleadment of the second respondent. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Law Points
- Order I Rule 10(2) CPC
- Impleadment of necessary and proper parties
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
- Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
