JUDGMENT :

P.T. ASHA, J.

1. The Civil Revision Petitions raise an interesting issue as to the right of a subsequent creditor to implead himself in the suit which is framed as a representative capacity suit.

2. The proposed plaintiff is the revision petitioner in all the three revision petitions. The three revision petitions that are before this Court for consideration are orders of the learned II Additional District Munsif, Erode in the following interlocutory application in O.S. No. 668 of 2004:

(a) C.R.P. No. 680 of 2010 is filed against the order in I.A. No. 166 of 2008 which is an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 (ii) of Code of Civil Procedure to implead the petitioner as the second plaintiff in the suit.

(b) C.R.P. No. 681 of 2010 arises against the order in I.A. No. 19 of 2009 which is filed under Order 1 Rule 10 (ii) Code of Civil Procedure to implead the legal representatives of the second and fourth respondent as defendants 9 to 13 in the suit.

(c) C.R.P. No. 682 of 2010 is filed against in I.A. No. 459 of 2009 which is filed under Order 7 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure to amend the plaint in keeping with the terms of the order in C.R.P. No. 2391 of 2007.

3. To appreciate the issue on hand, it is necessary to briefly narrated the suit and the subsequent events. The first respondent herein had filed the suit in O.S. No. 778 of 2001 on the file of the Sub Court, Erode subsequently transferred to file of the II Additional District Munsif, Erode renumbered as O.S. No. 668 of 2004, describing himself in the short cause title in the suit as D. Asokan, on behalf of himself and all other creditors of E.P. Subramaniam and similarly in the long cause title. The first defendant had contended that he had advanced loan on the security of a promissory note to the second defendant on 29.08.2000 (Rs. 50,000/-) and 16.11.2000 (Rs. 50,000/-); that in spite of several demands the second defendant had not repaid the amounts and that the second respondent was indebted to several creditors who were described in Schedule B to the plaint. He would further contend that the second respondent had fraudulently brought about sale deeds in favour of the defendants 3 to 7, in order to deprive the creditors of their dues and that despite issuing a legal notice, the second respondent had not come forward to settle the dues. Though the first respondent had described himself as filing the suit on behalf of all creditors, he had not sought the permission of the Court as mandated under the provision of Order 1 Rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure.

4. The second defendant V.K. Rangasamy, since deceased, had filed a written statement wherein the borrowal from the plaintiff was denied and he had gone on to state that on 03.11.1998, there was an agreement between the second respondent herein and one Kumaravel for the sale of the suit properties for a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- was stated to have been paid in advance. On the very same day, the first respondent had also executed a power of attorney in favour of the second respondent. On 15.02.1999, it is stated that the agreement holder Kumaravel had assigned the agreement in favour of the respondents 3 to 6 herein and the fourth defendant/V.K. Kanthasamy for valuable consideration and the assignment was duly endorsed upon the agreement of sale. The third respondent herein/third defendant had filed a written statement in which he had questioned the locus of the first respondent to file a suit in representative capacity and further contending that respondents 3, 4 to 6 herein and the deceased 4th defendant had sold the property to one Leela Venkatapathy who was a necessary party to the proceedings.

5. The 12th respondent in C.R.P. No. 682 of 2010 had taken out an application under Order 1 Rule 10 code of Civil Procedure to implead him as the 8th defendant in the suit. This application was dismissed by the learned District Munsif, Erode against which the said Leela Venkatapathy had filed C.M.A.