In recovery suits, only parties to the contract are necessary; third parties without direct interest cannot be impleaded.

COMMON ORDER: 

C.R.P.Nos.681 of 2024 and 739 of 2024 are filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against the orders dated 31.01.2024 passed in I.A.No.72 of 2022 in O.S.No.82 of 2022 and I.A.No.96 of 2022 in O.S.No.86 of 2022 respectively by the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kodad.

2. I.A.Nos.72 of 2022 and 96 of 2022 are filed by the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘C.P.C’).

The petitioner/plaintiff is the son of defendant/respondent No.2, filed a petition to implead himself as a defendant in O.S.No.82 of 2022 and O.S.No.86 of 2022. He claimed that he had an interest in his father's ancestral properties.

3. The respondent No.1 in both these revisions are the plaintiffs in respective suits. In both the I.As, they filed counter denying the petitioners’ contention. It is stated that petitioner herein is not concerned with the suit promissory notes and therefore he is not entitled to be added as a necessary party to the suits.

4. The trial court after hearing both sides observed that the plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of money based on a promissory note against the defendant in the suits. The petitioner, as the son of defendant, claimed interest in his father's ancestral properties. The trial court relied on the Doctrine of Dominus Litis, which states that the plaintiff has the right to decide who should be the parties to the suit. However, this right is not absolute and is subject to the provisions of C.P.C. The trial Court held that it has the discretion to add or remove parties to ensure that all necessary and proper parties are before it. The court must consider whether the persons claiming to be impleaded have a direct interest in the subject matter of the dispute.The court ultimately dismissed the petitions, holding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a legitimate need to be impleaded in the suits filed for recovery of money.

5. Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Kaja, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the revisions and Sri V.Brahmaiah Chowdary, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 in both these revisions.

6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.8 of 2021 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kodad against respondent No. 2. In I.A.No.30 of 2021, the trial Court granted the order of status quo. The petitioner sought to implead himself as a defendant in O.S.No.82 of 2022 and O.S.No.86 of 2022, but the said petitions were dismissed. His further contention is that the trial Court should have allowed the petitioner to implead himself, as he has direct interest in the subject matter of the dispute. He claims that his share in the property is not defined, and he cannot move petitions to invoke provisions under Order 38 Rule 5 or Order 21 Rule 58 of C.P.C. His further contention is that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are likely to obtain a decree through collusion, which would harm his interests. He claims that the presence of petitioner herein in the suits is necessary to avoid contradictions in execution and to prevent the sale of property. He further contended that the trial Court should have considered the promissory note dated 17.02.2020, which states that the money was borrowed by the defendant for family necessities. He further contended that every person in the joint family has a right to take part in the proceedings and is a proper party to the proceedings.

7. Learned counsel further contended that respondent No. 2 has already sold part of the schedule property to third parties. He claims that respondent No. 2 is creating multifarious litigation over the suit schedule property and that his presence in the recovery suits is necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

8. On the other hand learned counsel for the 1 st respondent would submit that the father of petitioner herein borrowed an amount of Rs.3 Lakhs from the 1 st respondent in both the revisions on17.02.2020 and inspite of several demands he did not discharge