T.Ruby Christie v. P.R.Krishnan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 19.01.2017 Coram The Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.Nagamuthu and The Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.Authinathan Original Side Appeal No.376 of 2013 T.Ruby Christie ...Appellant/Applicant/Plaintiff Vs.

1.

P.R.Krishnan 2.

C.Ganesh Balaji rep. by his General Power Agent Mr.G.Chandra Sekaran 3.

Mrs.R.Vathsala 4.

N.Ramdass 5.

Mrs.R.Kanchana Ganga Bai 6.

S.Ramakrishnan 7.

S.Vanchinathan 8.

S.P.Arumugam 9.

S.Revathi 10.

P.Radha

...Respondents/Respondents/

Defendants Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the O.S. Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order, dated 24.01.2013, made in Original Application No.3916 of 2012, in C.S.No.424 of 2012 on the file of this Court. For Appellant : Mr.V.G.Sureshkumar For Respondents:

Mr.R.Vishnu for Mr.K.Ramu JUDGEMENT (Judgement of the Court was delivered by S.Nagamuthu,J. ) The appellant is the plaintiff in C.S.No.424 of 2012, before the learned Single Judge of this Court.

2.

The suit was filed for recovery of a sum due under a simple promissory note executed by the first defendant. The other defendants, viz., defendants 2 to 23 were all impleaded as parties to the suit, on the allegation that, they had entered into various sale agreements with the first defendant to purchase the developed houses from the first defendant. It is the allegation that the first defendant borrowed money under the promissory note, in question, for the purpose of developing the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

buildings.

Therefore, according to the plaintiff, the defendants 2 to 23 are also necessary parties to the suit. On appearance, the defendants 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20 and 23, who are respondents herein, filed an application in A.No.3916 of 2012, seeking rejection of the plaint, so far as they are concerned. That application was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Challenging the same, the present Appeal has been filed.

3.

Heard the rival submissions made on either side and also perused the records carefully.

Admittedly, the suit is based on a simple promissory note. There was no charge created over the property, in question. It may be true that the first defendant borrowed money under the suit promissory note, for the purpose of developing the property. It may also be true that the other defendants 2 to 23 had entered into a sale agreement with the first defendant to purchase those developed houses, but, since in the original cause of action, the other defendants 2 to 23 have got nothing to do with, and there is no charge over the property, neither they are parties to any of the proceedings between the plaintiff and the first defendant, the learned Single Judge rightly rejected the plaint so far as the other defendants 2 to 23 are concerned. In the said order of the learned Single Judge, we do not find any infirmity, warranting interference of this Court.

5.

In view of the above, this Original Side Application fails, and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. -s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar sd To 1.The Sub Assistant Registrar Original Side High Court Madras ug(co) aa20/02/2017 Original Side Appeal No.376 of 2013 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/