Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite printing the name of the learned counsel for the respondent, no one appeared.
2. An epitome and summation of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:
The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.16 of 2005 seeking the following relief:
- directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,12,25,770/- with future interest from the date of suit till realisation at 18% per annum on Rs.85,72,500/-.
While so, the first defendant entered appearance and filed the written statement; whereupon reply statement was also filed; subsequently, I.A.No.1379 of 2007 was filed by the first defendant for impleading the following proposed parties:
(i) M/s.Sree V.Meenakshi Sundaram Textiles rep.by its Depot in-charge
(ii) Mr.M.Thiagarajan After hearing both sides, the lower Court allowed the I.A. Being disconcerted by and dissatisfied with the orders of the lower Court, this revision has been focussed on various grounds.
3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would advance his argument placing reliance on the grounds of revision to the effect that the plaintiff being the dominus litus can choose as to who should be the defendant and as against whom the relief should be sought and he has to prove it; it is for the court to decide thereon and it is not for the defendant to dictate terms to the plaintiff to implead certain persons; further more, in this case, the proposed parties are none but the original defendants Branch Office at Tiruppur and his official Thiagarajan at Tiruppur and as such the order of the lower Court has to be set aside.
4. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants would develop his argument to the effect that in fact, the proposed party, viz., Thiagarajan issued the receipts and appropriated the sum allegedly paid by the plaintiff for which, the original defendant would not be liable and hence, for the purpose of highlighting all these facts, the original defendant wanted the proposed parties to be added.
5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner cited the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2008 (1) CTC 343 (Sunil Gupta vs. Kiran Girhotra and others) "21. Further more, the plaintiff in the suit is the dominus litis. If he intends to take a calculated risk in the matter, the court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction."
6. It is exfacie and prima facie clear from the said decision that the plaintiff being the dominus litus can decide for himself or itself as to who should be the defendant and as against whom the relief should be sought. If at all the suit is in proper order, the relief sought for could be adjudged and ordered as otherwise, the plaintiff would face dismissal. Hence, in such a case, it is not for the original defendant to state that some defendants are necessary parties. Further more, here no relief is sought for by the original defendant as against the proposed parties by invoking Order VIII A of the Code of Civil Procedure (Third party procedure). According to the defendant, the amount was not given to the defendant and if so, it is for the defendant to put forth his defence during trial on his side and he is also at liberty to summon the said proposed parties as witnesses on his side or as court witnesses and enlighten the Court on that, whereupon it is for the trial Court to decide as to the liability of the defendant to the plaintiff.
7. As such, I could see no merit in the order passed by the lower Court. Accordingly, the order passed in I.A.No.1379 of 2007 is set aside and the civil revision petition is allowed and the I.A shall stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
vj2 To The District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.V), Coimbatore at Tiruppur