Impleading of parties at appellate stage not feasible.

C. SHIVAPPA, J.

The question for consideration in this civil miscellaneous petition is whether the petitioner is a proper and necessary party and entitled for impleading at the appellate stage?

2. The applicant is seeking for impleading as 7th additional respondent in O.S.A. No. 131 of 1998.

3. O.S.A. No. 131 of 1998 is against the judgment and decree of the trial Court passed in C.S. No. 1151 of 1995. The suit was recovery of Rs. 1,22,00,000/- in respect of the alleged return of two cheques issued by the respondent No. 1/defendant in the suit. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent No. 6, namely, M/s. Scotts Engineering, got impleaded and subsequently the Supreme Court by order dated 16-11-1995 filed by respondent No. 6, appointed the official Receiver to act as Receiver for carrying out the work of ship breaking with the respondent No. 6. The amount that may be realised by sale should be deposited up to the maximum of Rs. 1 crore. The respondent No. 6 complied with the order of Supreme Court by depositing Rs. 1 crore being the sale proceed of the ship breaking.

4. The trial Court by order dated 8-6-1998 decreed the suit against respondents 1 to 5, but dismissed as against respondent No. 6. While dismissing the suit, the trial Court observed that the appellant/plaintiff was not entitled to claim of Rs. 1 crore deposited with the Administrative General and this amount has to be paid to the respondent No. 6, viz. Scotts Engineering, who claims to be the lawful owner of the vessel M. V. Sagar. The respondent No. 6 with the intention of reducing its liability gave a letter dated 23-6-1998 authorising the bank to collect the said sum of Rs. 1 crore from the Official Receiver of the High Court of Madras. On the basis of that letter, it is contended that he has an interest in the subject-matter of the appeal and he is both a necessary and a proper party. However, it is also averred that the bank reserves its rights to initiate legal action for recovery of the due amount. It is stated that in the event of decree against respondent No. 6, the appellant thereafter might obtain an order for the return of Rs. 1 crore which is with the Administrative General, because the amount has no relevance with the return of two cheques. Therefore, the applicant bank is seeking to intervene in this appeal as a third party. Lastly, it is urged that non-impleading would cause hardship to the bank, as the bank is a necessary party.

5. The appellant contended that the third party can seek impleadment provided if he has a direct and substantial interest in the subject-matter of the litigation and his presence is absolutely essential to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit or appeal proceeding. But, in the instant case, the applicant is alleging assignment of the rights by the respondent No. 6 in favour of the applicant by virtue of a letter dated 23-6-1998 to claim the money which is available in the hands of the Administrative General and Official Trustee, Tamil Nadu. It is contended that the present applicant is neither a proper nor a necessary party to the present appeal proceedings and the litigation which was between the appellant and respondents 1 to 5 is pending for over four years and he has not chosen to whisper anything about the alleged loan or the hypothecation, but has come forward with the present application at this belated stage, that too, at the appeal stage. Even assuming without conceding that the proposed applicant if at all has any right or claim in law as against M/s. Scott Engineering, it has to work out its remedy independently in appropriate proceeding and not in the present appeal. When the claim to the said money held by the Administrative General and Official Trustee is very much in dispute, it has no nexus to the inter se transaction between the respondent No. 6 and the proposed applicant. Even, if there is any claim, by the proposed applic