Judgment:
S. Padmanabhan, J.
1. An order rejecting the application to implead an additional defendant is challenged by the first defendant in revision.
2. The first defendant is a partnership firm and the other defendants are its partners. A suit was filed by the Andhra Bank for realisation of amounts advanced under various heads of loans. The contention was that the advance was guaranteed by the Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (ECGC) and, therefore, the Corporation is a necessary party. A separate application filed for that purpose was opposed both by the plaintiff as well as the ECGC.
3. Admittedly, the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants is independent of the agreement (exhibit B-1) between the plaintiff and the ECGC to which the defendants are not parties. There seems to be some independent transaction between the defendants and the ECGC in which the plaintiff is not interested and is not a party. The contention of the defendants that the ECGC guaranteed the advances to them by the plaintiff does not appear prima facie to be correct. Such a claim was denied both by the plaintiff and the ECGC and the contention is that the transaction between the ECGC and the defendants is entirely different and unconnected with the plaint transaction. ECGC has issued a Whole Packing Credit Guarantee to the plaintiff bank under which, when the whole or any portion of the amount due from the defendants is ultimately found irrecoverable after exhausting all remedies independently, there will be a specific liability for the ECGC. That is rather in the form of an insurance unconnected with the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants and the relief claimed against the defendants in the suit.
4. The plaintiff has not made any claim in the suit against the ECGC and the plaintiff does not want to implead the Corporation or ask for any relief. The ultimate claim, if any, of the plaintiff against the ECGC is independent of the plaint transaction by which the defendants are exclusively liable. Liability of the defendants towards the plaintiff is also independent of the claim of the plaintiff against the ECGC and also independent of the claim of the defendants, if any, towards the ECGC. The only relevant factor is that in case the plaintiff becomes unable to enforce the liability against the defendants after exhausting all remedies, the plaintiff may get a cause of action against the ECGC. Under such circumstances, the question is whether the ECGC is a necessary or proper party.
5. There is one other aspect. The suit was filed in 1934. Written statement was also filed in 1984. After settlement of issues, the suit was included in the special list and it is being tried. It was at that stage that the impleading application was filed. There is great force in the contention that the application is intended to protract the trial of the suit.
6. Order I, Civil Procedure Code, deals with parties to suits. Rules 1 and 3 specify as to who may be joined as plaintiffs or defendants. Even in cases covered by rules 1 and 3, courts are entitled to order separate trials as enjoined by rules 2 and 3A. All those who could be joined as plaintiffs need not necessarily be plaintiffs and the same is the case with the defendants also. All persons interested in the subject-matter need not necessarily be plaintiffs or defendants.
7. The plaintiff is the dominus litis. He is the person who approaches the court for relief on payment of court fee. He is the master of the litigation and the best judge of his own interest. It should be left to him to choose his opponent from whom he has to seek the relief. It is none of the lookout of the court or the defendant to see whether he should be asked to claim relief against other persons when he is not bound to do so. Normally, he cannot be compelled to fight with persons against whom he does not want to fight. The contrary could be had only in exceptional cases and we are at the question as to what those exceptional cases are.
8. It is open to the court to implead a new party as defendant even against the consent of the plaintiff and in spite of his opposition in a fit and proper case. In such cases the test is not whether it accords with the wishes of the plaintiff or whether any investigation into a question not arising out of the cause of action alleged by the plaintiff becomes necessary. The test is whether the relief claimed by the plaintiff will directly affect the person to be impleaded in the enjoyment of his rights. Persons whose interests are likely to be affected by the decision in the suit are entitled to come in to protect their interests especially when it is likely to be jeopardised by the persons already on record. Anyhow, the person sought to be added should have a direct interest as distinguished from a commercial interest in the subject-matter of the litigation.
9. Additions in spite of the wishes of the plaintiff could be only of two classes of persons. They are necessary parties, namely, persons who ought to have been impleaded and proper parties without whose presence the questions in the suit cannot be completely and effectively adjudicated upon. Where a person is neither a necessary party nor a proper party, the court has no jurisdiction to add him. Merely because one is likely to be incidentally affected by the decision, he need not and cannot be added when the plaintiff does not want to fight with him.
10. When a person is sought to be impleaded against the will of the plaintiff who is to control the litigation, what the court has mainly to look into is whether there is anything in the suit which cannot be determined on account of his absence in the party array or whether there will be prejudice by his not being added. The wording in Order 1, Rule 10(2), is 'whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.' 'Questions involved in the suit' are only questions as between the plaintiff and the defendants and not questions that may arise between the plaintiffs and the third parties or the defendants and the third parties unconnected with the plaint, cause of action and relief. Impleading should be had where it is really necessary for a complete adjudication of the questions involved in the suit and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. On the mere ground that the addition of parties may save the third party or the defendant from expenses of a separate litigation the subject of which is not directly or substantially the subject-matter of the pending litigation, impleading cannot be had. A pro forma party cannot be so impleaded.
11. Many persons may have a director indirect or even remote interest in the subject-matter of the litigation. That is not the question. Their direct interest in the cause of action and the relief as between the plaintiff and the defendant and the possibility of their right or interest being affected by the decision is the consideration. Those who are not so affected by the decision but having interest in the subject-matter on different causes of action could very well seek their remedies elsewhere if they so want. All persons interested in the subject-matter need not be necessary or proper parties. The plaintiff who approaches the court for a specific relief against a particular defendant on a subject-matter under a specific cause of action in which others are not directly interested or their interests are not likely to be affected by the decision, cannot be compelled to enlarge the scope of the litigation and complicate the same by adding new parties against whom he does not want any relief or with whom he does not want a fight. He could be so compelled only in cases covered by Order 1, rule 10. These positions are well established and if at all any authority is required, it could be had from the decisions in Sampo Frozen Foods v. Karnataka Bank Ltd. [1983] KLT 447, P.V. George v. Bank of Madurai Ltd. [1986] KLT 406, B. Somaiah v. Amina Begum, AIR 1976 AP 182, P. R. Nallathambi v. Vijaya Raghavan, AIR 1973 Mad 25, and Hardeva v. Ismail, AIR 1970 Raj 167.
12. The subject-matter of this suit is only enforcement of a loan liability by the plaintiff against the defendants on the basis of a transaction to which they alone are parties. ECGC is not a party to that transaction and it has nothing to do with the enforcement of the liability by the plaintiff against the defendants. The agreement between the plaintiff and the ECGC is independent of that cause of action and the defendants are not parties to it. The fact that ultimately the plaintiff may have a cause of action against the ECGC if the amount or any portion of it is not realisable from the defendants is independent of and unconnected with the cause of action as between the plaintiff and the defendants. The transaction, if any, between the defendants and the ECGC is also independent of the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants and the plaintiffs and the ECGC. The plaintiff does not want any relief against the ECGC in this suit and the ECGC also does not want to come in as a defendant. If at all anybody other than the parties will be affected by this suit, it is only the ECGC which is not interested in a fight. In such a situation, the stand of the defendants to bring in the ECGC is illegal and unreasonable. The liability of the defendants towards the plaintiff is also not in any way connected with their liability towards any claim against the ECGC. It naturally follows that the ECGC is not at all interested in the cause of action or relief in the suit and hence it is not a necessary or proper party. The plaintiff cannot be compelled by the defendants to litigate against such a party.
13. The revision petition is without any merit and it is hereby dismissed with costs.