Skip to content


Pappa Ammal Vs. Pandiyan Bank Ltd. and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.R.P. No. 928 of 1962
Judge
Reported inAIR1963Mad480
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 1, Rule 10
AppellantPappa Ammal
RespondentPandiyan Bank Ltd. and ors.
Appellant AdvocateSivagnam, Adv. for ;V.V. Raghavan, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateSivamani, Adv. for ;M. Natesan, Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- - it is poor satisfaction to a person, who is neither a necessary nor a proper party, to be told that she will first be impleaded, and later on, after she was gone through the ordeal or a suit, the suit will be dismissed against her, in case it was found that she was not a party......question whether the widow of the deceased manicka chetty was either a necessary party or even a proper party. but he contented himself with saying that, if it were to be found in the suit that she was not a necessary party, the suit would have to be dismissed against her. this is a very unsatisfactory way of disposing of the matter. before a court impleads a particular person as a party to a suit, it is its duty to find even at that stage whether that party is a necessary party or a proper party. it will be only abdicating its duty if it were to reserve that question to a later stage, impleading the person as a party and exposing him to all the travails of a litigation. it is poor satisfaction to a person, who is neither a necessary nor a proper party, to be told that she will first.....
Judgment:
ORDER

S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.

1. The learned Subordinate Judge has allowed the widow of the deceased Manicka Chetty to be impleaded as a party to O.S. No. 79 of 1961 and this civil revision petition is directed against the order. Unfortunately, in making the order, the learned Subordinate Judge did not decide the question whether the widow of the deceased Manicka Chetty was either a necessary party or even a proper party. But he contented himself with saying that, if it were to be found in the suit that she was not a necessary party, the suit would have to be dismissed against her. This is a very unsatisfactory way of disposing of the matter. Before a Court impleads a particular person as a party to a suit, it is its duty to find even at that stage whether that party is a necessary party or a proper party. It will be only abdicating its duty if it were to reserve that question to a later stage, impleading the person as a party and exposing him to all the travails of a litigation. It is poor satisfaction to a person, who is neither a necessary nor a proper party, to be told that she will first be impleaded, and later on, after she was gone through the ordeal or a suit, the suit will be dismissed against her, in case it was found that she was not a party.

I have therefore considered it necessary to consider the pleadings in the case to find out whether Pappammal, the petitioner, can he said to be a necessary party. The suit was laid on the basis of a mortgage by deposit of title deeds created by Manicka Chetti. The property belonged to him personally; but the debt, which, according to the plaintiff, was secured by the mortgage, was a liability of the partnership. The suit being thus one on the mortgage all the representatives of the mortgagor should be regarded as necessary parties. Pappammal was undoubtedly a representative of the mortgagor. She will therefore be a necessary party. The order of the lower Court has to be sustained, though not for the reason stated by it.

2. The civil revision petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //