AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 204 wordsRajamannar, C.J.—The learned Judge was wrong in dismissing the application under Order VIII-A, Rule 1 C. P. Code On the ground that
there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the third party. Generally speaking, there will not be such privity in a claim falling under
Order VIII-A which the defendant sets up against a third party. If there was direct privity then the third party would have been a necessary party. I
do not see how the plaintiff will in any way be hurt if the application is allowed and G. Ramaswami Reddiar is made a third party. If the defendant
is able to prove his case that Ramaswami Reddiar undertook to discharge the plaintiff''s claim, then it would only mean that there will be two
sources from which the plaintiff''s claim could be satisfied. In my opinion this is a case to which Order VIII-A rule 1 will apply and the learned
Subordinate Judge wrongly refused to exercise the jurisdiction which vested in him under that provision. The civil revision petition is allowed and
the application made by the petitioner under Order VIII-A is allowed. There will be no order as to costs either here or in the court below.