Or.1, R.10 CPC enables the addition of parties if their presence is necessary for effectively adjudicating all the controversies involved in the case, and a party should have a legal interest in the subject matter of the dispute to be added as a defendant in a suit.

(PRAYER: Revisions filed against the order dated 25.02.2003, made in I.A.No.17501/2002 in O.S.No.3572/2000 on the file of the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.)

Common Order

These two revisions are preferred against the order of the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, dated 25.02.2003, made in I.A.No.17501/2002 in O.S.No.3572/2000, allowing the petition filed under Or.1, R.10(2) CPC ordering impleading of the proposed parties/Respondents 2 and 3 as the Defendants 2 and 3. Plaintiff and the proposed parties have separately preferred these revisions.

2. O.S.No.3572/2002 :-

This suit was filed by the Plaintiff for recovery of Rs.2,00,500/- on the basis of the Promissory Note in favour of the Plaintiff. Case of the Plaintiff is that the Defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from one Rajini Swaminathan on 11.3.1997. Inspite of repeated demands, the Defendant has not paid the amount to the said Rajini Swaminathan. On 11.10.1999, the suit promissory note was assigned in favour of the Plaintiff for consideration. The Plaintiff had issued a legal Notice on 25.02.2000 demanding the payment of money. The Defendant received the notice and sent a reply with false allegations. Hence the Plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of Rs.2,00,500/- with interest at 12% p.a.

3.Denying borrowal from Rajini Swaminathan, the Defendant has filed the Written Statement contending that Plaintiff's sister Mangammal had obtained loan for her business unit from Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation. Their residential premises at No.2, III Cross Street, West CIT Nagar, Chennai was brought for auction due to default in payment of the loan amount and the undertaking. At that time, the Plaintiff and his mother Kamala and sister Mangammal approached their Defendant for assistance in clearing the loan amount and for saving the property. As a well-wisher of the Plaintiff's family, the Defendant signed blank pro-note in good faith, without knowing the name of the promisee. Later on, money has been arranged through other sources to discharge the debt of Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation. Though the debt was discharged, signed pro-note was neither returned nor was it acted upon. The Defendant has no knowledge of the said Rajini Swaminathan using the suit promissory note as a vexatious document and cannot be relied upon to sustain the claim of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff and his family members who are responsible for bringing into existence the suit pro-note are guilty of breach of faith. The Plaintiff is not entitled to the amount claimed.

4. I.A.No.17501/2002 :-

This application was filed by the Defendant to implead Plaintiff's mother Kamala and sister Mangammal. Reiterating the defence in the Written Statement, the Defendant has filed this application stating that he had no contact with Rajini Swaminathan and that no amount was borrowed by him at any time. The said Rajini Swaminathan and the Plaintiff are friends. In collusion with the Plaintiff, the suit has been filed against the Defendant. Plaintiff's mother Kamala and Mangammal are necessary parties for effective adjudication. It is further alleged that unless Plaintiff's mother Kamala and sister Mangammal are impleaded as parties, the Defendant would be subjected to hardship and there would not be effective adjudication.

5.The Plaintiff has resisted the application for impleading his mother and sister and filed a counter statement contending that the Plaintiff having admitted the execution of the promissory note is bound to prove the non passing of consideration for the promissory note. According to him, his mother Kamala and sister Mangammal have nothing to do with the borrowing of the amount, covered by the promissory note executed by the Defendant in favour of Rajini Swaminathan. It is further alleged that the Defendant having admitted the execution of the promissory note, the Defendant has to prove the failure of consideration rebutting the presumpt