Case Note & Summary
The revision petitioner, K. Balasathiya Narayanan, filed a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated October 17, 2022 passed by the Principal District Court, Erode (Trial Court) in I.A. No.507 of 2019 in O.S. No.176 of 2019. The petitioner was the plaintiff in the original suit, which was filed against the first respondent, K. Manokar, for recovery of a sum of Rs.20,86,000/- based on a loan transaction. The plaintiff alleged that the first respondent borrowed Rs.20,00,000/- on February 2, 2019, issued a post-dated cheque which was dishonoured, and despite legal notice, failed to repay. The plaintiff also filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. During the pendency of the suit, the second respondent, Meena (wife of the first respondent and proprietor of Sri Shastivel Garments), filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC seeking to implead herself as a defendant. The Trial Court allowed the application, holding that her presence was necessary for effective adjudication. The plaintiff challenged this order, arguing that no cause of action was pleaded against the second respondent and that the suit was only against the first respondent. The High Court examined the scope of Order I Rule 10(2) CPC and held that the power to implead a party is discretionary and can be exercised if the court finds that the presence of the proposed party is necessary for complete and effective adjudication. The court noted that the second respondent is the wife of the first respondent and the proprietor of the business concern from which the loan was taken, and therefore her presence would help in deciding the real controversy. The High Court further held that the plaintiff has no vested right to object to the impleadment of a person who is a proper and necessary party. The court also observed that the Trial Court's order was a discretionary one and did not suffer from any perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227. Accordingly, the civil revision petition was dismissed, and the order of the Trial Court was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order I Rule 10(2) - Impleadment of Party - Necessary and Proper Party - The court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. The power under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC is discretionary and is to be exercised to effectuate complete and effective adjudication. (Paras 5-7) B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order I Rule 10(2) - Impleadment - No Vested Right to Sue or Be Sued - The plaintiff has no vested right to insist that a particular person should not be impleaded as a defendant. The court, if satisfied that the presence of a proposed party is necessary for effective adjudication, may allow impleadment even against the plaintiff's wish. (Para 7) C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order I Rule 10(2) - Impleadment - Proprietor's Wife in Money Suit - In a suit for recovery of money based on a loan transaction, where the defendant is the proprietor of a business and the proposed party is his wife, the court may allow impleadment if it is necessary for effective adjudication, especially when the wife is also involved in the business. (Paras 8-9) D) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Supervisory Jurisdiction - The High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, does not act as an appellate court and will not interfere with a discretionary order unless it is perverse or suffers from jurisdictional error. (Para 10)
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, despite the plaintiff's objection that no cause of action was pleaded against her.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the civil revision petition, confirming the order of the Trial Court dated October 17, 2022 in I.A. No.507 of 2019 in O.S. No.176 of 2019. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Law Points
- Order I Rule 10(2) CPC
- impleadment
- necessary party
- proper party
- effective adjudication
- no vested right to sue or be sued
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
