P. RAMACHANDRA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THESE two Civil Revision Petitions arise out of a reference made by our learned brother Justice Krishna Saran Shrivastav, who doubled the correctness of/ the decision reported in /i Srinivasa Rao v. 7. Subba Rao, 1972 (1) An. WR (SN) 13, which is a case of father absconding being a defendant in a suit filed on the foot of a promissory note, and sons claiming to be impleaded as defendants, has been accepted.

( 2 ) THE suit O. S. No. 22 of 1995 is filed on the basis of a promissory note alleged to have been executed by one Mr. Raghava Rao, husband of the first petitioner and father of Petitioners 2 to 4. Alter summons were received by Raghava Rao, he engaged aqr Advocate, who sought time for filing written statement on 12-9-1995. In fact adjournments were granted on payment of costs, and the suit was finally posted to 17-10-1995, on which dale, the defendant was called absent and set ex parte. An ex parte decree was passed on 27-10-1995. The respondent - decree holder filed E. P. No. 118 of 1995. Then the petitioners filed applications to implead themselves as parties to the execution petition on the ground that Raghava Rao was absconding from 6-9-1995 and he could not be traced inspite of their best efforts, including giving a report in the police station and the respondent who is having knowledge about these facts purposely omitted to implead the petitioners as parties to the suit who have very good defence in the suit and therefore, without impleading them the execution petition cannot be proceeded as the decree is not valid and binding on them. With similar allegations they have also filed an application before the trial Court for selling aside, the ex parte decree, along with an application to condone, Ihe delay of 27 days in filing the said application. As the execuling Court dismissed the application for substitution of the names of the petitioners in place of missing Judgment deblor, Raghava Rao, the petitioners filed C. R. P. No. 2144 of 1997. As the trial Court allowed the applicalion -I. A. No. 718 of 1996 seeking condonalion of delay in filing Ihe application to set aside the ex parte decree, the respondent filed C. RP. No. 2558 of 1997.

( 3 ) WHEN these Civil Revision Petitions came up before our learned brother Justice Krishna Saran Shrivasta v. he, referred, the civil revision petitions to a Division Bench, as he felt that there is a conflicting legal opinion on the question whether the heirs of an absconding defendant should be permitted to be impleaded as parties to the suit, though he is alive.

( 4 ) BEFORE we go into the, conflicting decisions, it is necessary to have a look at the relevant provisions. Order 1 Rule 3 reads thus: "3. Who may be joined as Defendants :-All persons may be joined in one "suit as defendants where- (a) any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist against such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative; and (b) if separate suits were brought against such persons, any common question of law or fact would arise. "under this rule, all persons may be joined as defendants in a suit where (1) any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions and (2) if separate suits were brought against such persons, any common question of law or fact would arise. The provisions of Rule 3 are only permissive, and it is not mandatory that every person who is ultimately interested in the suit should be. impleaded as a defendant. In order to justify the joining of more than one person as defendants, it is not obligatory on the part of the plaintiff to show that all the defendants are concerned in all the alt the reliefs claimed or all the transactions comprised in the suit. Enough if some common link or nexus is found to satisfy the requisite ingredient as to there being the same act or transaction or series of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document