Full Judgment
2. Mr. Syamalam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, after pointing out the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application filed under Order 8-A of the Civil Procedure Code, submitted that in order to claim indemnity, it is necessary that the proposed respondents must be made parties to the suit. This argument is opposed by Mr. Jose, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff in the suit on the ground that the application is belated, that it is filed in order to protract the proceedings and that since the defendant has failed to implead these respondents under Order 1, Rule 13, C. P. Code, he must be held to have waived his right. The learned counsel appearing for the proposed respondents 2 and 3 submitted that as per the deed of dissolution, they are not liable to pay and they are unnecessary parties to the suit.
3. 1 have carefully gone through the facts of the present case. It is clear that under Order B-A of the Civil Procedure Code, a defendant in the suit can get the leave of the court to issue a notice to third parties. The order reads:-
"8-A (1). Where a defendant claims to be entitled to contribution from or indemnify against any person not already a party to the suit (hereinafter called a third party) he may, by leave of the court, issue a notice (hereinafter called a third party notice) to that effect, sealed with the seal of the court. The notice shall state the nature and grounds of the claim. Such notice shall be filed into court with a copy of the plaint and shall be served on the third party according to the rules relating to the service of summons ..........."
It has been clearly averred by the petitioner herein that he wants indemnification from the two proposed respondents since they were partners at the time when the cheque was issued by the plaintiffs to the partnership concern. No doubt O. 1, R. 13 of the Civil Procedure Code speaks about objections as to n6n-joinder or misjoinder of parties. This is not a case wherein the defendant wants to raise a contention either of non-Joinder or misjoinder of parties in the suit, but this is a case wherein the defendant wants to invoke the third party procedure available to him under the Code. Hence I do not think that there is any relevancy in quoting O. 1, R. 13 of the Code to support the contention of the plaintiff in the suit. No doubt there is a delay in this case. Nevertheless, the right of the petitioner to invoke the procedure laid down under O. 8-A can be safeguarded provided a prima facie case is made out for the issue of such notice. As the facts stand, the cheque was issued by the plaintiff as early as 26-11-1975. The partnership was dissolved on 15-2-1976. It is only after 15-2-1976 the proposed respondents went out of the partnership. No doubt it is argued on behalf of the proposed respondents that they are not liable to pay the suit amount nor any indemnity can be claimed against them. All these contentions can be effectively agitated in the main suit itself. We are now only at the stage of issuing a notice under O. 8-A, C.P.C. inasmuch as a prima facie case is being made out by the defendant in the suit to claim indemnity from the proposed respondents, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be served by permitting the petitioner to invoke the third party notice in order to implead respondents 2 and 3. In these circumstances, the civil revision petition is allowed and 1. A. No. 15485 of 1980 is ordered as prayed for. Since the suit is of the year 1978, the trial court is directed to dispose of the same before the end of January 1982. The respondents 2 and 3 herein are at liberty to contest the claim of the petitioner herein without in any way being prejudiced by the observations made in this order. There will be no order as to costs.
4. Revision allowed.