The court must be satisfied that there exists a prima facie case and there are bona fides in the claim against the third party. The court will dismiss the application if it is found that the claim is outside contribution or indemnity or if the case is one of too great complication to be properly tried in the original action.

Patnaik, J.

Both the revision petitions were heard together, as they arise out of a common order.

2. The 4th defendant in O.S. No 140 of 1988, on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam has preferred these revisions against the common order dated 6-7-1991 in LA. Nos 5603 and 5604 of 1990 dated 14-9-1990 arising out of the said suit. By the impugned order, the learned Sub Judge dismissed the application and rejected the 'prayer of the petitioner to implead the counter-petitioner, who later died during the pendency of the proceeding, as third party under Order 8A Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming that he is entitled to contribution from or indemnity against the third party. The legal representatives of the deceased counter-petitioner have been brought on record as respondents 8 to 10 it these revisions.

3. The plaintiff (first respondent herein) filed the suit against the petitioner and respondents 2 to 7 (who were defendants 1 to 7) for recovery of about Rs. 6,00,000/-. The said amount was advanced by Lakshmi Commercial Bank to the first defendant. It merged with the plaintiff Bank subsequently. The practitioner/4th defendant executed an equitable mortgage of his properties and a guarantee agreement standing as security for the loan. The petitioner at first, denied the execution of the equitable mortgage and (he deed of guarantee in his written statement. But, later on personal verification of the documents filed by the plaintiff in the court below he having found that: he had actually signed the deed of guarantee in respect of the loan advanced the first defendant filed an additional written statement admitting the fact. The counter-petitioner (late Sri.B.S.Kamalh) was working as a Chartered Accountant and was a friend of the petitioner. It is contented that on his request the petitioner signed some documents in the Bank. At that time, the counter-petitioner had orally agreed to contribute or indemnify against his liability,

4. The suit was filed on 2-3-1988. The Petitioner filed a written statement on 4-10-1988 without slating about the said liability of the third party, Subsequently, he filed a n additional written statement on 1-9-1990 making an averment that the counter petitioner-third party is liable to indemnify him against the claim if he is found liable to pay any amount under the decree. It is slated by him that the third party executed a written agreement on 13-6-1990 to this effect. Hence he tiled the applications to implead the counter-petitioner and grant leave to him to issue third party notice to the counter-petitioner/ third party.

5. The plaintiff-Bank and the third party filed objections. The plaintiff slated that the cause of action as accrued by the petitioner arose subsequent to the filing of the suit. The trial of the suit will be protracted if the petition is allowed. It will also cause inconvenience to the plaintiff. The third party contended that he never made any promise nor did he internet any oral agreement with the petitioner as claimed by him. He further stated that on 13-6-1990 he was brought to the house of the petitioner by his brother and some others and was forced to sign some papers there. He signed it under threat and coercion. These papers were converted into an agreement. He filed a complaint in the, Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam as C.C.No.616 of 1990 against the petitioner and comers. Since he has not executed the agreement voluntarily, he is not liable to indemnify the petitioner in case the petitioner sustains any loss on account of the loan. He is therefore not a necessary party.

6. The learned Sub Judge held that there is no prima facie case and the claim now advanced by the petitioner is devoid of any bona fides. The cause of action for claiming contribution accrued to the petitioner according to his own admission, subsequent to the tiling of the written statement. There was no oral agreement between the petitioner and the third party at (he time