The petitioner is challenging the Order dated 11.09.2007 made in I.A.No.41 of 2006 in O.S.No.38 of 2006 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Puducherry.

2. The plaintiff in O.S.No.38 of 2006 on the file of the III Additional District Court at Puducherry is the revision petitioner before this Court. She is aggrieved by the order of the trial court dated 11.09.2007 made in I.A.No.41 of 2006 filed by her under Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C. to implead the proposed parties/respondents 3 to 5 herein as defendants 3 to 5 in O.S.No.38 of 2006 and respondents 3 to 5 in I.A.No.39 of 2006. The trial court by order dated 11.09.2007 dismissed I.A.No.41 of 2006 and aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed the above Civil Revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. The brief facts which are necessary for the purpose of disposing of the above Civil Revision petition are as follows:

The plaintiff filed O.S.No.38 of 2006 for recovering a sum of Rs.18.25 lakhs from the defendants 1 and 2/respondents 1 and 2 herein with subsequent interest at 30% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.10 lakhs from the date of the plaint till the date of realisation. According to the plaintiff, on 111. 2001, the defendants 1 and 2 borrowed a sum of Rs.10 lakhs from her for the purpose of their business and they jointly executed a promissory note for the said sum of Rs.10 lakhs in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants 1 and 2 have also agreed to pay interest at the rate of 30% per annum on the said principal sum of Rs.10 lakhs. As the defendants failed to pay any amount towards the said loan, the plaintiff issued a notice dated 03.03.2004 to the defendants and inspite of the same, the defendants have not come forward to repay the borrowed amount. Hence, she filed O.S.No.38 of 2006 for the aforesaid reliefs (originally filed as O.S.No.387 of 2004 on the file of the Sub Court, Puducherry and later on transferred to the Chief Judge, Puducherry and re-numbered as O.S.No.36 of 2006.

4. The suit was defended by the first defendant by filing a Written Statement wherein it was denied that he borrowed a sum of Rs.10 lakhs from the plaintiff on 111. 2001. According to the first defendant, since the consideration amount has been paid to him, he is not liable to pay the alleged sum of Rs.10 lakhs. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

5. Pending O.S.No.387 of 2004, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1343 of 2004 for Attachment before Judgment of the properties of the first defendant. In the counter filed in I.A.NO.1343 of 2004, the first defendant stated that he is not owning any of the properties mentioned in the petition schedule and therefore, he sought for the dismissal of I.A.No.1343 of 2004.

6. Subsequently, the plaintiff came to know that the first defendant executed a Settlement deed dated 05.06.2003 in favour of his wife and children and therefore, she filed I.A.No.41 of 2006 under Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C. to implead his wife and children as defendants 3 to 5 in the suit and respondents 3 to 5 in I.A.No.1343 of 2004.

7. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.41 of 2006, the plaintiff stated that the proposed parties are the universal donees and they are liable to pay the debt of the donors. This was resisted by both the defendants as well as the proposed parties. The trial court has dismissed the I.A.No.41 of 2006 by order dated 11.09.2007.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 5. I have also gone through the entire documents available on record.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner while taking exception to the reasons given by the trial court for rejecting I.A.No.41 of 2006, relied on the following decisions to submit that the proposed parties are proper and necessary parties for both the suit and interim application.

1. A.I.R. 1978 AP 173 (Linga Reddi Srinivasulu Reddy (died) and Oth