Power of Court to implead another defendant.

This is a revision against the order of Court of Subordinate Judge of Bellary striking out the second defendant on the ground that he was improperly joined as a party to the suit.

The facts according to the plaintiff, that gave rise to the cause of action against the defendants, may be briefly stated. The plaintiff is a merchant doing business in dhal and other commodities at Adoni. The first defendant posing himself as a representative of Maheswari Mills Moria (Madhya Bharat) entered into a contract with him to sell 4 waggons of gram and dhal. At the time of the contract, he produced forged licences and delivered a letter alleged to have been written by Maheswari Mills authorising him to collect the money from the purchasers in respect of the railway waggons for which railway receipts were to be delivered. Believing these representation, the plaintiff paid Rs. 7,000 to the first defendant and obtained an assignment of four documents styled as railway receipts covering these four waggons. The sum of Rs. 7,000 was paid in currency notes of Rs. 100 each by the plaintiff towards a portion of the sale price. The numbers were noted in the schedule to the plaint. The first defendant agreed to deliver the commodities and recover the balance of the purchase money. He passed a receipt for the amount of Rs. 7,000 received by him. On the back of the receipt kept by the plaintiff, the numbers of notes were noted at that time. The first defendant also signed in the original and the duplicate of letter paper containing letter head of the plaintiff’s firm agreeing to deliver the waggons contracted for on payment of money. After this transaction, the first defendant left the place. As the waggons were not sent in accordance with the terms of the contract and discovering the fraud done by the first defendant, the plaintiff filed a complaint before the Tenali Police who promised to investigate into the matter and take suitable action. Identical notes given by the plaintiff to the first defendant were seized and they were deposited in the First Class Magistrate’s Court, Tenali. The first defendant was tried by the First Class Magistrate and was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Adoni, directed the amount of Rs. 7,000 then found on the persons of the first defendant and which belonged to the plaintiff should be returned to the plaintiff. At this stage, the second defendant filed O.S. No. 169 of 1949 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Guntur, against the first defendant on the ground that a similar fraud was committed on him and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,000 and obtained an ex parte decree. In execution of the decree, the second defendant in collusion with the first defendant fraudulently attached the amount in deposit in the Magistrate’s Court and after the said amount was transferred to the credit of the suit filed by him, he drew out the same. On these allegations, the petitioner filed O.S. No. 47 of 1951 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bellary, for recovering the amounts from the defendants. Paragraph 14 shows that the cause of action of the suit arose at Adoni where the offence was committed and on subsequent dates. It will be seen from the aforesaid facts that so far as the first defendant is concerned, the cause of action admittedly arose within the jurisdiction of the Court of Bellary. But in regard to the second defendant, the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Tenali Sub-Court and the second defendant also resides within the jurisdiction of the said Court. To put it differently neither the cause of action against the second defendant arose within the jurisdiction of the Bellary Sub-Court nor does the said defendant reside within its jurisdiction. The allegations in the plaint discloses that the second defendant was not a party to the fraud committed by the first defendant against the plaintiff in so fa