2, 3 & 5 : Served – No appearance For Respondents-

4 & 7 : Not ready in notice For Respondent-6 : Mr.H.Siddharath for Mr.P.Giridharan

O R D E R

Feeling aggrieved by the Dismissal Order dated November 14, 2018 passed in the Interlocutory Application filed under Order I Rule 10 (2) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in I.A.No.571 of 2017 in O.S.No.2414 of 2016 on the file of 'the XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court'), the Petitioner therein has preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

2.The Revision Petitioner herein is the 1^st Defendant, the 1^st Respondent herein is the Plaintiff and the 2^nd Respondent herein is the 2^nd Defendant in the Original Suit. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit. 3.The Plaintiff filed a Suit against the Defendants seeking a money decree directing them to pay a sum of Rs.9,16,079/- along with interest at 18% per annum on Rs.7,81,235/- from the date of plaint till the date of realization.

4.The defendants filed their written statement and the 1^st defendant has filed a counter-claim along with the written statement seeking a direction to the Plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.11,51,957.98/- along with interest at 18% per annum on Rs.9,52,037.98 from the date of plaint till the date of realization.

5.When the case was posted for trial, the 1^st Defendant filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.571 of 2017 to implead Respondents 3 to 7 herein as proposed Defendants 3 to 7 in the Suit as necessary /

proper parties to decide the counter claim.

6.The Trial Court after hearing both sides, concluded that the dominus litus Plaintiff is the and he has the right to choose the Defendants. If the Plaintiff did not implead the necessary parties, the case will be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and must fail. Further, the Plaintiff did not seek any relief against the Respondents 3 to 7 / proposed Defendants. Accordingly, the Trial Court dismissed the Interlocutory Application.

7.Feeling aggrieved by the Dismissal Order, the Revision Petitioner/1^st Defendant filed this Civil Revision Petition.

8.Mr.Ravikumar Paul, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the first defendant filed a written statement with counter claim seeking money decree against the plaintiff. He drew attention to Order VIII Rule 6-A to 6-G of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and submitted that counter claim shall be treated as a plaint and the rules applicable to the plaint applies to counter claim. In short, the counter claim shall be treated as a separate Suit against the plaintiff. To adjudicate the counter claim, the proposed parties are necessary / proper parties. The Trial Court did not properly appreciate the facts and dismissed the petition. In support of his arguments, he relied on Sarojini Amma -vs- Dakshshyani Amma reported in 1994 SCC OnLine Ker 281; Jag Mohan Chawla -vs- Dera Radha Swami Satsang reported in (1996) 4 SCC 699; Rajul Manoj Shah alias Rajeshwari Rasiklal Sheth -vs- Kiranbhai Shakrabhai Patel reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1958; and A.V.Murugan -vs- K.Maheswari reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Mad

39139.

9.Mr.V.S.Rishwanth, learned Counsel appearing for the 1^st Respondent referred to the pleadings and submitted that the plaintiff is dominus litis.

the He seeks money decree against the defendants 1 and 2 alone. The first defendant filed a counter claim against the plaintiff alone. Hence, the proposed parties are not necessary parties to decide the dispute between the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2. The first defendant can very well summon the proposed parties for examination during trial if he so desires. In a counter claim, the first defendant cannot implead new parties. If the first defendant feels that the respondents 3 to 7 are proper / necessary parties, then he ought to have filed an independent Suit. The Trial Court has rightly dismissed the Interlocutory Applicat