An applicant seeking to join a suit must demonstrate necessity; mere claims of debt do not suffice for party status.

ORAL ORDER

The applicant in O.S.No.3381/2021 pending trial before the XLI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') has filed this petition challenging an order dated 07.08.2024 by which, his application (I.A.No.1/2024) filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 (henceforth referred to as 'CPC') to come on record was rejected.

2. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. The petitioner herein was the applicant in I.A.No.1/2024 filed before the Trial Court. The respondent No.1 was the plaintiff, while the respondent Nos.2 to 5 were the defendants before the Trial Court.

3. A suit in O.S.No.3381/2021 was filed by the plaintiff for the following reliefs:-

i) Pass a judgment and decree against the defendants 1, 2 and 4 restraining them permanently from releasing the death benefits of late Manjesh Yadav, who was working as Senior H.R. in Defendant No.1 & 2 Company from 2015 till his death in favor of Defendant No.3.

ii) Pass a judgment and decree directing Defendants 1, 2 and 4 to pay to the Plaintiff and Defendant 3 by 50:50 ratio payable due to the death of Manjesh Yadav. In the alternative, direct the Defendants 1, 2 and 4 to deposit the entire amount before this Hon'ble Court till the disposal of the suit.

4. When the suit was set down for the evidence of the plaintiff, an application (I.A.No.1/2024) was filed by the applicant/petitioner herein to come on record. In the affidavit accompanying the application, it was stated that the plaintiff, her husband and their son/Sri. Manjesh Yadav had availed hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- for the purposes of marriage of Sri. Manjesh Yadav. The plaintiff, her husband and their son executed a promissory note on 09.09.2020 and agreed to repay the amount within a period of two years along with interest at the rate of 1.5% per annum. He contended that the marriage of son of the plaintiff was performed on 19.10.2020 at Raichur. However, he died due to COVID - 19 on 29.05.2021. After the death of the son of the plaintiff, the applicant/petitioner herein requested the plaintiff to return the money. Since the plaintiff allegedly did not repay the money, he filed an application (I.A.No.1/2024) to come on record in the present suit.

5. This application was contested by the defendant No.3.

6. The Trial Court in terms of the impugned order rejected the application on the ground that the applicant/petitioner herein was neither a proper nor a necessary party for the adjudication of the suit. It held that the applicant/petitioner herein may pursue his remedy before the proper forum to establish the claim against the plaintiff and the defendant No.3.

7. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant is before this Court in this writ petition.

8. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the plaintiff and defendant No.3, who are entitled to the service benefits of the deceased, are liable in law to repay the amount payable to the applicant and therefore, the applicant is a proper and necessary party for the adjudication of the suit. She contends that except the service benefits of the deceased- Sri. Manjesh Yadav, there is no property against which the applicant can proceed to recover the money and therefore, the presence of the applicant in the case is necessary.

9. The suit filed in O.S.No.3381/2021 is on the premise that the plaintiff is entitled to 50% of the service benefits of her son and the remaining 50% to the defendant No.3. If the applicant has advanced any loan to the plaintiff or to her husband or to her son, he is bound to establish the same before the competent Court in the manner known to law. He cannot seek for impleadment in the suit as he is neither a necessary party nor a proper party. The suit can be decided in the absenc