The main legal point established in the judgment is that a third party can only be impleaded in a suit if it is necessary for the effective adjudication and settlement of all questions involved in the suit, and the presence of the proposed parties should be necessary for adjudicating upon the questions involved in the suit.

1. The revision petition is against the order of the Principal Sub Judge, Quilon in I. A. 2726/84 in O. S.249/83. Revision petitioner is the 2nd defendant. 2nd defendant filed the application under 0.1 R.10(2) of the C.P.C. for impleading the Export Credit And Guarantee Corporation Ltd., Bombay (E. C. G. C. Ltd.) as an additional defendant. The learned Sub Judge dismissed the petition holding that there is no necessity at all to implead the additional defendant.

2. The revision petitioner filed written statement along with defendants 3 to S. Issues were framed on 21-7-1984 and the case was posted for trial in the special list on 1-10-1984. In the meanwhile, revision petitioner filed I. A. 2726/84 to implead E. C. G. C. Ltd., Bombay as additional defendant.

3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that from the pleadings of the plaintiff as well as that of the defendants and the documents produced by the plaintiff it could be seen that E. C. G. C. Ltd. has expressly guaranteed protection to the plaintiff Bank against losses due to the non-payment by exporters (defendants) on account of their default and that the E. C. G. C. Ltd. is bound to pay under the policy 3/4th of the loss in the case of post-shipment Export Credit Guarantee, Export Finance Guarantee and Export Performance Guarantee and 2/3rd of the loss in others. According to the revision petitioner, substantial part of the amount claimed in the plaint ought to be paid by the Export Credit and Guarantee Corporation Ltd. and therefore the said Corporation is a necessary party in the suit. Counsel submitted that in the written statement the necessity to implead E. C. G. C. Ltd. has been clearly stated and therefore it cannot be said that the petition has been filed only to prolong the proceedings. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent contended that the trial court's order does not call for any interference by this court as it is not fair or proper to compel the plaintiff who is the master of his case to implead third parties. Counsel submitted that if at all the revision petitioner is entitled to be compensated by E. C. G. G. Ltd. he should file proper suit against it and he should not unnecessarily complicate the issues involved in this suit between the plaintiff and defendants. Counsel for the respondent submitted that impleading E. C. G. C. Ltd. will not in any way be prejudicial to the plaintiff and at any rate to avoid multiplicity of proceedings the court below ought to have allowed the petition.

4. The plaint claim is for approximately Rs. 56,52,748.24 with future interest and costs. According to the plaintiff's counsel the plaintiff and the defendant firm with partners contracted debtor-creditor relationship wherein neither the E. C. G. C. Ltd. nor any other person or body corporate was a necessary and proper party. In para 5 of the written statement revision petitioner has admitted the debtor-creditor relationship with the plaintiff. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that in view of the suit claim and also in view of the admission in the written statement that there is debtor-creditor relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant there is really no necessity to implead E. C. G. C. Ltd. Undoubtedly, plaintiff is the dominus-litis and only in exceptional circumstances a third party can be impleaded ignoring the objections of the plaintiff. That can be done only if the party sought to be impleaded has a direct interest, a legal interest and not a mere commercial interest. Merely because the packing credit guarantee insured is for the benefit of the bank, defendant's liability is not absolved.

5. Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that in para 11 of the plaint it has been admitted that the packing credit limit sanctioned is against hypothecation of sea foods, against lodgment of letters of credit/ confirmed order (covered under the whole turn-over packing credit guarantee of E. C. G. C. Ltd. obtained by the plaintif