C SHANMUGHAM Vs. N RADHAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a third party, but who claims to be affected by interim order passed in the suit. THErefore, he filed an application for impleading himself before the lower court which was refused to be accepted by the lower court.

(2.) THESE revisions are filed against the order of the lower court, refusing to receive the application. The facts in these cases are simple. The first respondent in these revisions filed O.S. No. 4803 of 1998 on the file of the XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, for declaration that the resolution passed by the defendant in the suit dated July 3, 1998, suspending him as a director is null and void and for a consequential permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from interfering with the functions of the plaintiff as a director and for consequential reliefs. In that suit, the first respondent moved I.A. No. 11207 of 1998 for injunction.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a possibility of the nidhi not putting forward proper defence which is likely to affect his right as a director. He wanted to protect his interest independently, though the claim is based only on the resolution dated July 6, 1998.In view of the above circumstances, I feel the petitioner is also entitled to be heard in the suit.