Ramaswami Naioker vs Ranganayagi and another

Subba Rao, J.—This is a revision against the order of the District Munsif of Sitter, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for

impeding the respondents under O. 1. R. 10, Civil Procedure Code. The petitioner had dealings with Venkatarama Nicked, the grand father of the

respondents. As Venkatarama Nicked died the plaintiff filed O. S. No. 239 of 1952 on the file of the District Munsif''s Court of Sitter for recovery

of the amount, alleged to be due to him from his brothers, Venkatakrishna Nickel and Thathayya Naicker, his legal representatives. Pending the

suit he filed an application under O. 1 , R. 10, Civil Procedure Code, praying that the respondents should be added as defendants on the allegation

that they held intermeddled with the estate of Venkatarama Naiksr, collected some amounts and were trying to collect other amounts due to the

estate. They denied in their counter that they intermeddled with the estate. They also stated that they are not the legal representatives of their

deceased grandfather. The learned District Munsif was satisfied that they were not intermeddlers, and dismissed the application. Mr. Champakesa

Aiyangar contended that the respondents ware proper parties and the suit could be decided satisfactorily only in their presence and therefore the

learned Munsif was wrong in dismissing the petition. In a suit for recovery of money, I cannot see how the respondents, who are admittedly not the

legal representatives of the deceased, can be made parties. The fact that they are assignees of some insurance amounts from the deceased cannot

be a ground for making them as parties to a suit for recovery of money from the deceased. The fact that if a decree was given in favors of the

petitioner, he might be in a better position to realize that amount cannot conceivably be a ground for making the assignees as parties to the suit. The

power to add parties to a suit is not intended to facilitate execution. It would be invoked only for effectively and finally disposing of the questions

that arise in the suit. The only question would be whether any amount were due by the deceased to the petitioner. For disposing of that question

the presence of respondents is not necessary. Therefore they are neither proper nor necessary parties to the action. The order of the lower Court

is right and the revision is therefore dismissed with costs.