A party must demonstrate a legal right to be impleaded in a suit; mere claims of asset takeover are insufficient.

ORDER

Petitioner claims to be a committee formed by a group of persons to whom financial liabilities were outstanding to be discharged by one Kunhahammed, who is now no more. Petitioner styling itself to be in such capacity had moved an application for its impleadment as an additional defendant under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure in a suit for recovery of money, O.S No.79/2008, filed by the 1st respondent against the legal heirs of Kunhahammed, his widow and children. The liabilities to the plaintiff and similarly placed creditors of Kunhahammed had been incurred by him towards operation of his business establishments and now all those assets have been taken over by the petitioner committee was their case seeking impleadment as an additional defendant in the suit. That application was opposed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff. The learned Sub Judge found no merit in the application moved for by the revision petitioner seeking its impleadment as an additional defendant in the suit, and it was turned down. Propriety, legality and correctness of that order is sought to be assailed invoking the revisional jurisdiction vested with this court.

C.R.P No.603/2010 2

2. I heard the counsel on both sides. The plaintiff in the suit has not sought for a decree against the petitioner who claims to have taken over the assets of late Kunhahammed. The petitioner has not produced any material before the court to set forth a case that legally it is entitled to take over the assets of Kunhahammed, or represent him in any claim against his assets. The fact that the petitioner is constituted as a committee and the claim made that it has taken over the assets of Kunhahammed, even if assumed to be true, that would not in any way affect the legal rights of the creditor, the plaintiff, to proceed against the legal representatives of late Kunhahammed, the debtor, and also the assets of Kunhahammed which they would get by inherence. The respondents 2 to 10 in the revision are stated to be the legal heirs of late Kunhahammed and, in fact, it appears, they have no objection in the impleadment of the petitioner as an additional defendant. But, the plaintiff, needless to state, is the dominus litus of the suit and his entitlement to sue only against the legal heirs of his debtor cannot be interfered by a stranger, unless it shows its legal right to be brought in at least as a proforma party in the suit. Petitioner has not shown any semblance of right to be impleaded as a party in the suit. There is no merit in the revision, and it is dismissed.