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