The revision petitioner/first defendant has filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 28.10.2009 in I.A.No.149 of 2009 in O.S.No.154 of 1980 passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu in directing the revision petitioner to implead the bank as a necessary party in the interlocutory application.
2. The trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.149 of 2009 dated 28.10.2009 has passed the following order:
" Both side counsels present. R1 stated no objection but on perusal of the case records, it was found R2 Bank authority(D2 in O.S.No.154 of 1980) also is a party to the case. Therefore, Bank authority also necessary party to this petition. Hence, steps to be taken to implead R2 Bank authority. For notice to R2, call on 5.11.2009."
and as such, the petitioner being dissatisfied with the same has approached this Court in the revision petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/first defendant urges before this Court that the respondent/plaintiff before the trial Court has stated no objection to I.A.No.149 of 2009 but however, the trial Court has opined that the Bank authority is also necessary party to the application and ordered the petitioner to take steps to implead the Bank and ordered notice for R2 viz., the Bank on 5.11.2009.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order mentioned supra is against law perse and erroneous one in the eye of law and as a matter of fact, the trial Court has not properly appreciated the ambit of the application as well as the scope of the main suit and inspite of the fact that on behalf of the first respondent before the trial Court , an endorsement has been made to the effect that the plaintiff/first respondent has no objection for issuance of cheque in favour of the petitioner/first defendant as early as on 6.8.2009 and later on 28.10.2009, there is no reason for the trial Court to order the petitioner to implead the Bank as a necessary party and since the said order of the trial Court suffers from material irregularity and also patently illegal one and the same needs to be set aside by this Court sitting in revision.
5. This Court heard both sides and has paid its anxious consideration to the arguments advanced and noticed their contentions.
6. The petitioner/first defendant has inter alia averred that he is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.27,45,916/- which is available before the trial Court and further as on date, there is no attachment of the same and therefore has prayed for issuance of cheque for the amount in issue.
7. Even before this Court today, the learned counsel for the respondent has made an endorsement that' no objection for the petitioner withdrawing the sale consideration amount pending in the Court'. Added further , it is pertinent for this Court to point out that even before the trial Court on behalf of the respondent/R1 side, 'no objection' endorsement has been made, like the one made before this Court. That being the factual position, it passes beyond one's comprehension as to why the trial Court has ordered the impleading of Bank as a necessary party to I.A.No.149 of 2009. Admittedly, the Bank has no connection whatsoever,in regard to M.VENUGOPAL,J sg the proceeding in O.S.No.154 of 1980 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu . Also when the Bank is not concerned with the proceedings between the parties, this Court opines that it is not a necessary or a proper party to I.A.No.149 of 2009 and therefore, the order of the trial Court dated 28.10.2009 in I.A.No.149 of 2009 directing the petitioner to implead the Bank is an unwarranted one and hence the same is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice and accordingly the civil revision petition is allowed.
8. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. The order dated 28.10.2009 passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.149 of 2009 is set aside. I.A.No.149 of 2009 is allowed. Consequently, the revision petitioner/first defendant is permitted to receive the amount of Rs.27,45,916/- from the trial Court in the manner known to law/Civil Rules of Practice. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.
17.12.2009 Index:Yes Internet:yes sg Note:Issue order copy on 18.12.2009 To the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu CRP.NPD.NO.3771/2009