- (1.) THIS revision petition arises out of the order passed in I. A. 258 of 1971 in O. S. 81 of 1964 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli. The first respondent herein filed that application under Order 1, Rule 10 and Section 151, Civil P. C. praying to implead the petitioner herein as a party defendant in the suit. It is necessary to narrate the events that preceded the filing of the application under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil P. C. by the first respondent herein.
(2.) LALITHA, the first respondent herein filed the suit O. S. 81 of 1964 against respondents 2 and 3 for rendition of accounts of the value of all the jewels which the first respondent had entrusted with them. The suit was decreed on 24-3-1966 directing rendition of accounts by the second and third respondents to the first respondent. On appeal by respondents 2 and 3 of the District Court Tiruchirapalli in A. S. 427 of 1966, the District Judge found that the entrustment of the jewels listed in Ex. A. 17, with respondents 2 and 3 by the first respondent was true and that respondents 2 and 3 will have to account and pay for the jewels, while disposing of the appeal the District Judge observed-- "there is nothing to show that out of sheer good-will, the first respondent (petitioner herein) may have agreed to bear the entire expenses of three substantial litigations launched by the appellant (first respondent herein ). . . . . . . . . . Inevitably, therefore, the expenditure of litigation in part at least must have come out of the sale or pledge of jewellery of the appellant (first respondent herein ). Therefore, the relief sought obviously is to recover the balance of value either in the shape of case or the remaining jewellery of the appellant (first respondent herein)after debiting against her the expenditure of the litigation on a proper proof thereof. But it is not the case of the appellant (first respondent herein) that respondents 2 and 3 (respondents 2 and 3 herein) were in charge of the conduct of the litigation in which she was involved or that they sold the jewellery or incurred any expenditure in connection with the litigation. On the other hand, the case of the appellant (first respondent herein) is that the first respondent (petitioner herein) did so. Yet, the first respondent (petitioner herein) has not been made a party to the suit. Therefore, the best way of disposing of the suit seems to me to remand so that the first respondent (petitioner herein) may also be made a party thereto and then (1) take an account of the expenditure incurred for the litigation, (2) the precise amount realised by the sale if any, of the jewels, and (3) if none of the jewels are available, determine the value of the jewels are available, determine the value of the jewels and (4) set off the expenditure of the litigation against the same and enable the appellant (first respondent herein) to recover the balance. " With these observations, the District Judge remanded the suit to the trial Court for the fresh disposal.
(3.) ON appeal against the order of remand by respondents 2 and 3 herein before this Court in S. A. 877 of 1968, Kailasam, J. dismissed the second appeal with the following observations:- " the only point is whether the order of remand can be sustained. Taking into account that Ponnuswami Reddiar (petitioner herein) is a necessary party, I do not think that the order of remand directing to implead him and to go into the question mentioned by the lower appellate Court is erroneous. Therefore, the order of remand will have to be confirmed. In directing remand, the lower appellate Court has given some findings. As the entire case will be reopened in the presence of Ponnuswami Reddiar who was not a party to the prior proceedings, these findings will have to be vacated and the matter gone into afresh. ";