CRP/358/2001 of Vs on 18 December 2003

:O R D E R

The above civil revision petition has been filed under Section115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the fair and decretal order dated23.11.2000 made in I.A.No.653 of 2000 in O.S.No.82 of 1998 by the Court ofDistrict Munsif, Sivaganga thereby dismissing the Interlocutory Applicationfiled by the petitioner herein praying to implead her as the second plaintiffin the suit.

2. Tracing the history of the above civil revision petition coming to be filed by the petitioner, what comes to be known is that thepetitioner's husband, the second respondent herein, has filed the suit inO.S.No.82 of 1998 based on a pronote dated 1.6.1996 alleged to have beenexecuted in favour of the petitioner herein for a sum of Rs.30 ,000/= by thefirst respondent herein on a supposed made over given by the petitioner hereinin favour of her husband, but actually no endorsement has been effected in thepronote to the said effect. However, the suit has been filed by the husbandpraying for a decree as prayed for in the suit in his favour.

3. The petitioner would come forward to say that purely by mistake or oversight, in spite of all her intentions, a made over has beengiven in her husband's favour but the endorsement had not been effected andtherefore it has become necessary on her part to become a party to the suit as the second plaintiff to prosecute the same and therefore she has come forwardto file the above application under Order 1 Rule 10 and Section 151 CPC andthe said application having been taken on file, the trial Court havingconducted an enquiry with due opportunity for both parties to be heard, duringwhich the defendant in the suit would stiffly oppose the implication of thepetitioner as the second plaintiff in a suit anonymously filed by her husbandwithout any locus standi to file the same and hence the lower Court wouldultimately dismiss the said application filed by the petitioner for herimpleadment, testifying the validity of which and praying to set aside thesame, the petitioner has come forward to file the above civil revisionpetition on certain grounds as brought forth in the grounds of revisionpetition.

4. The short question that falls for consideration, in the

4. The short question that falls for consideration, in the above circumstances, is 'whether the lower Court is right in dismissing theapplication filed by the petitioner for impleadment in a suit filed by herhusband in his capacity as the person who has been given the made over of thesuit pronote which is the subject matter but without any endorsement effectedor supporting document filed to the effect of having given the made over andwhether the order passed by the lower Court is sustainable in law?5. It may be noted that in spite of there being no made overeither in the pronote or by any supporting document to the said effect, thesuit filed by the present plaintiff, the husband of the petitioner herein, hasbeen bluntly numbered and taken on file by the lower Court which itself cannotbe done in law and therefore there is no gainsaying that the suit filed inO.S.No.82 of 1998 has any locus standi to be on file and to be continued sinceit is the admitted case of the petitioner that only based on the made overgiven in favour of the plaintiff by the petitioner, the suit has been filedand when such an endorsement having not been produced anywhere, the lowerCourt has committed grave error in numbering the suit and taking it on itsfile and therefore the lower Court and the staff of the said Court, who areresponsible for entertaining the suit on file are to be severely dealt with inaccordance with the disciplinary proceedings.

6. No mention need be necessary that in a suit which has no locus standi to be on the file of the lower Court, there is no question ofadding parties on any ground much less on those grounds offered on the part ofthe petitioner in spite of her being the party in whose favour, the pronote isalleged to have been executed and therefore though the lower Court is right inrejecting the claim of the petitioner for her impleadment as the secondplaintiff in the suit, the lower Court should have initiated such measures toundo the very suit filed without any locus standi by her husband in spite ofhimself not being the person in whose favour the suit pronote has been givenbut by a third party, the petitioner herein, without herself being a party tothe proceeding at least and should have seen that the suit is dismissed orstruck off from the rolls on ground of locus standi. But, for what betterpurpose the lower Court is keeping the suit on file in spite of all the abovementioned facts being revealed through the petition filed by the petitionerfor her impleadment is unknown and therefore, in the above given facts andcircumstances, the only conclusion that could be arrived at by this Court inthe above civil revision petition is not only to dismiss the same but also toissue directions to the lower Court and hence the following order:

In result,

(i) the above civil revision petition does not merit acceptance and it becomesliable only to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.

(ii) The fair and decretal order dated 23.11.2000 made in I.A.No.653 of 2000 inO.S.No.82 of 1998 by the Court of District Munsif, Sivagangai is confirmed.(iii) However, a further direction is issued to the trial Court to immediatelyinitiate such steps regarding the maintainability of the suit and to decidethe preliminary legal issue of maintainability of the suit giving anopportunity for both parties to be heard.

(iv) In consideration of the facts and the other circumstances revealed, thepetitioner to the facts stated by her, will be at liberty to file a fresh suitbased on the pronote which is the subject matter, which is alleged to havebeen given in her favour either in case the present suit is withdrawn or inthe event that it is dismissed as not maintainable by the lower Court.However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be noorder as to costs.

Consequently, C.M.P.No.1933 of 2001 is also dismissed.

Index: YesInternet: Yes

Rao

To

The District Munsif,Sivagangai.