Chithirainathan vs Kamaraj, & Anr.

The defendant in the suit is the revision petitioner before this Court. The suit was filed for recovery of money based on the Cheques for Rs.6,00,000/- issued to discharge the debt, but on presentation returned for insufficiency of funds. The revision petitioner/defendant is contesting the suit primarily on the ground that there was no privity of contract between himself and the plaintiff. The Cheque was not given to discharge any debt he owed to the plaintiff. Contrarily, he gave the suit Cheques to one L.Muthukumar with whom he had financial transaction.

In the course of trial, the revision petitioner to substantiate the above plea has filed an application to implead the said L.Muthukumar as a party since according to him, without impleading him, the issues in the suit cannot be determined.

The Trial Court after considering the plea has dismissed the application on the ground that the issue involved in the suit is whether the defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff or not and the factum under the suit cheques the defendant is indebted only to L.Muthukumar and not to the plaintiff can be proved not by impleading L.Muthukumar but by other means.

Aggrieved by the dismissal order, the present revision petition is filed on the ground that whether the defendant''s contention that he borrowed money only from L.Muthukumar and issued a blank cheque for the loan of Rs.1,00,000/- is one of the issues to be considered in the suit and for the said purpose, L.Muthukumar is a necessary party. In order to enable the Court to adjudicate the matter effectively and completely, Muthukumar is a necessary party and hence dismissal of the application seeking impleadment of L.Muthukumar is erroneous in law.

Heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides.

The plaint as framed is in respect of the Cheques alleged to have been issued by the defendant to the plaintiff to discharge his debt. The revision petitioner has denied the privity of contract with the plaintiff. While so, if the defendant wants to establish a contra case namely, L.Muthukumar was the person to whom he has given cheque and he has borrowed money only from L.Muthukumar, he can very well establish the same by examining L.Muthukumar as a witness.

The proposition placed by the revision petitioner herein that L.Muthukumar should be arrayed as a party to the suit and undergo the ordeal of trial is highly preposterous. If this sort of application is allowed, then, in money suits, the defendant may plead fake third parties as his creditors and deny the instrument executed by him in favour of the plaintiff and force the Court to array third parties as parties to the suit and ultimately distract the course of the suit. Courts cannot be privy to such dilatory tactics. The remedy for the revision petitioner to establish his defence is not by way of impleading L.Mutukumar as a defendant, but only by examining the said Muthukumar about the alleged transaction of the suit Cheque with him. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the revision petition. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.