Allowed¶16

K.Tamilselvi v. M.Loganathan

Madras HC2 Apr 2025CRP/2947/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Striking off / deleting unnecessary parties; Order I Rule 10(2) CPC; necessary and proper parties; Article 227 Constitution of India; civil revision petition C.R.P (PD); promissory notes / pro notes executed in personal capacity; Hindu Undivided Family business claim; Viniyaka Rig Drillers; money recovery suit; Principal District Court Salem; defendants deleted from array of parties; trial court order set aside; no costs; Madras High Court; P.T. Asha J.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 21.06.2023 in IA.No.1 of 2022 in OS.No.166 of 2022 (Principal District Court, Salem) set aside; defendants 2 to 4 deleted from the array of parties; connected miscellaneous petition C.M.P.No.18202 of 2023 closed; no costs. ¶16

K.Tamilselvi Vs M.Loganathan — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether defendants 2 to 4, who did not sign the pro notes and were not involved in the borrowal, are necessary or proper parties to OS.No.166 of 2022 and should be struck out/deleted from the array of parties. +1 more

¶35

Court's answer

A perusal of the pro notes shows they were executed by the 1st defendant in his personal capacity, with no reference anywhere to the business or to the Hindu Undivided Family, and defendants 2 to 4 are not parties to the said promissory notes.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Except for the plaint averments, nothing has been filed on the side of the plaintiff to show that the business is a joint Hindu Undivided Family business.

¶15

Key takeaways

Since defendants 2 to 4 are in no way involved in the borrowal or the execution of the pro notes, they are unnecessary parties to the suit.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Single-judge order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras (P.T. Asha J, 02.04.2025) allowing C.R.P (PD) No.2947 of 2023, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by defendants 2 to 4 (K.Tamilselvi, K.Nithya, K.Goutam) against the dismissal of their IA.No.1 of 2022 application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC in plaintiff M. Loganathan's money-recovery suit OS.No.166 of 2022 (Principal District Court, Salem; pro notes dated 10.03.2019). The Court found from the pro notes that they were executed by the 1st defendant alone in his personal capacity, with no reference to Viniyaka Rig Drillers or any Hindu Undivided Family, that defendants 2 to 4 neither signed the pro notes nor were involved in the borrowal, and that apart from plaint averments nothing evidenced a joint HUF business; accordingly defendants 2 to 4 are unnecessary parties. The trial court's order dated 21.06.2023 was set aside, defendants 2 to 4 were deleted from the array of parties, the connected C.M.P.No.18202 of 2023 was closed, and no costs were awarded.

¶1

C.R.P (PD) No. 2947 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02.04.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

¶6

C.R.P (PD) No.2947 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.18202 of 2023

¶7

K.Tamilselvi

¶8

K.Nithya

¶9

K.Goutam ... Petitioners

¶10

vs.

¶11

M. Loganathan ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the

¶13

Constitution of India against the order dated 21.06.2023 made in IA.No.1 of 2022 in OS.No.166 of 2022 on the file of the Principal

¶14

District Court, Salem.

¶15

1/9

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

C.R.P (PD) No. 2947 of 2023

¶18

For Petitioners : Mr. R.Marudhachalamurthy For Respondent : Mr. R.Sethuvarayan.

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Challenging the dismissal of their application seeking to strike them off from the array of parties, the defendants 2 to 4 are the petitioners before this Court. The brief facts are as follows.

¶21

The respondent herein had filed the suit OS.No.166 of 2022 on

¶22

the file of the Principal District Court, Salem seeking recovery of money based on a pro notes dated 10.03.2019.

¶23

It is the case of the plaintiff that he is a practicing Advocate at

¶24

Salem. That the defendants were jointly carrying on rigging operation in the name and style of Viniyaka Rig Drillers and for the purpose of the business they had approached the plaintiff with a request to give a

¶25

2/9

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

C.R.P (PD) No. 2947 of 2023

¶28

loan on 01.03.2018 to the tune of Rs.1,00,00,000/-.

¶29

On 10.03.2019 a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- had been paid by the plaintiff to the defendants. The 1^st defendant executed two pro notes for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- each, promising to repay the same at an interest of 12% per month. From the date of the borrowal a sum of Rs.24,00,000/- was paid towards interest for 24 months for which acknowledgment was given. Thereafter, the amounts not paid and despite demands defendants not repaid the said amount. Therefore, the respondent had come forward with the above suit.

¶30

The 1^st defendant had filed a written statement inter alia contending that the plaintiff had only given a loan of Rs.20,00,000/- for which he had obtained blank pro note. A sum of Rs.24,00,000/- was repaid by him on 04.05.2021. Separate receipts for the sum of Rs.24,00,000/- had been given.

¶31

3/9

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

C.R.P (PD) No. 2947 of 2023

¶34

When the 1^st defendant requested the return of blank pro notes, the plaintiff had informed that it had been misplaced and he would return the same when it is traced. The 1^st defendant would submit that these pro notes have now been misused. He would deny the averments contained in the plaint that the borrowal is for commercial purpose and that all the defendants are liable to repay the same.

¶35

Simultaneously the defendants 2 to 4 filed IA.No.1 of 2022 under Order I Rule 10 (2) of the CPC to strike out / delete the defendants 2 to 4 as they are neither necessary nor proper parties to the proceedings.

¶36

In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, the defendants would submit that allegations that the amounts were borrowed for the purpose of Viniyaka Rig Drillers is absolutely false. The defendants 2 to 4 are no way connected with the borrowal. The pro notes itself have not been signed by defendants 2 to 4 and it does

¶37

4/9

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

C.R.P (PD) No. 2947 of 2023

¶40

not contain any statement that the money is borrowed for the purpose of Viniyaka Rig Drillers or for the Hindu Undivided Family.

¶41

They would submit that no case whatsoever has been made against defendants 2 to 4. The signature of the 1^st defendant alone is found in the pro notes and the 1^st defendant's contention is that only a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- for personal expenses had been borrowed and the said sum had been repaid with interest as a sum of Rs.24,00,000/-. They would therefore submit that they are unnecessary to the proceedings.

¶42

The plaintiff filed a counter inter alia denying that the borrowal was only for the business purpose and Viniyaka Rig Drillers is a family business of the defendants. He would contend that the defendants are collectively and jointly liable to repay the loan taken by them. He therefore sought for the dismissal of the application.

¶43

5/9

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

C.R.P (PD) No. 2947 of 2023

¶46

The learned Principal District Judge, Salem by order dated

¶47

21.06.2023 was pleased to dismiss the application. The learned Trial

¶48

Judge observed that a perusal of the plaint would indicate that all the defendants had jointly approached the plaintiff for a loan and pro notes had been prepared and executed in their presence. That apart, the written statement had been filed by 1^st defendant and adopted by defendants 2 to 4. Whether these defendants are necessary or proper parties can be decided only after a Trial and dismissed the same.

¶49

Challenging the same the petitioners are before this Court.

¶50

Heard the learned counsels and perused the records.

¶51

A perusal of the pro notes would clearly indicate that the same were executed by the 1^st defendant in his personal capacity, nowhere there is a reference to the business or to the Hindu Undivided Family. The defendants 2 to 4 are not parties to the said promissory

¶52

6/9

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

C.R.P (PD) No. 2947 of 2023

¶55

notes.

¶56

That apart, except for the plaint averments there is nothing filed on the side of the plaintiff to show that the business is a joint Hindu Undivided Family business. Since defendants 2 to 4 are noway involved in the borrowal or the execution of pro notes they are unnecessary parties to the suit.

¶57

Therefore, the civil revision petition is allowed. The order dated 21.06.2023 made in IA.No.1 of 2022 in OS.No.166 of 2022, on the file of the Principal District Court, Salem is set aside. The defendants 2 to 4 are deleted from the array of parties. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶58

02.04.2025

¶59

Index: Yes/No Internet: yes/No

¶60

kan

¶61

7/9

¶62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶63

C.R.P (PD) No. 2947 of 2023