Maddukuri Rattamma and Others vs Mattina Venkata Rao and Another

Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.—I see no reason to interfere in revision. All simple creditors need not be brought on record in a partition suit. Order 1 Rule 10, Civil P. C., has the word "may" and not "shall." Such creditors can always file suits and get the properties of the minor plaintiffs attached before judgment if justified and allowable. The father has been adjudicated insolvent in I. P. No. 5 of 1948, and the Official Receiver, East Godavari, is defendant 5. It is alleged by the petitioners that all the debts due to these creditors are shown in the schedule prepared in the insolvency petition. So, the Official Receiver can protect the interest of all the creditors, and he is the proper person to do so. The ruling in Official Assignee Vs. Ramachandra Aiyar and Others, , and other rulings relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners require nothing more. No doubt, the minor plaintiffs allege that their father has incurred some debts for illegal or immoral purposes, and that they will not be binding on them. The debts of these creditors are not mentioned eo nomine there to make it imperative for these creditors to add themselves as parties to protect their interests. It is alleged that the Official Receiver is apathetic and indifferent and will not fight out their interests. If that is so, they can apply to the insolvency Court, prove this extraordinary allegation, and get themselves appointed as special receivers, and get themselves added as defendants in the suit as such special receivers. The lower Court has a discretion to add these creditors or not. It cannot be said that it erred in law or failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it, or acted with material irregularity or caused a material failure of justice by passing the order it did. This revision must be dismissed in view of that, and in view of the Privy Council ruling in AIR 1949 156 (Privy Council) , it is dismissed, but, in the peculiar circumstances, without costs.