(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 17.08.2022 made in I.A.No.6 of 2022 in O.S.No.49 of 2019 on the file of the II Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the fair and decreetal order dated 17.08.2022 passed by the learned II Assistant Judge, II Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, in I.A.No.6 of 2022 in O.S.No.49 of 2019, wherein the Court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. This Court heard the learned counsel appearing on either side, carefully perused the materials placed before this Court and went through the order passed by the Court below.

3. The first respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit was filed on the ground that the petitioner/defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff, executed promissory notes and handed over the title deeds with a view to create security. When notice was issued calling upon the petitioner/defendant to repay the amount, the same was not repaid and under such circumstances, the suit was filed against the petitioner seeking recovery of money.

4. The petitioner filed I.A.No.6 of 2022 before the Court below on the ground that the promissory note was obtained from the petitioner by playing fraud and under undue influence and that the petitioner did not borrow money from the plaintiff. Actually, the money was borrowed only by the proposed second defendant/R2. Based on the request made by the plaintiff and the proposed second defendant, the petitioner had signed a security document and there was absolutely no money transaction between the petitioner and the plaintiff. Therefore, the petitioner wanted the actual borrower of money to be impleaded as a defendant in the suit. The impleading application came to be filed under these circumstances.

5. The Court below came to the conclusion that the signature of the petitioner is found in the promissory note and therefore, the actual liability of the petitioner can only be decided during the course of the trial and the plaintiff cannot be made to prosecute the suit against a person to whom the plaintiff has not lent the money. Accordingly, the impleading petition came to be dismissed by the Court below.

6. In the considered view of this Court, all the averments that have been made in the plaint and the documents filed by the plaintiff point out only to the petitioner as the person who had borrowed the money and signed all the relevant documents. If according to the petitioner, she did not borrow the money and the money was borrowed by some other person, at the best, that person can be called as a witness in the suit to substantiate the defence taken by the petitioner. A necessary witness in a case need not be a necessary party to the proceedings and the law on this issue is too well settled.

7. The party who is now proposed to be impleaded is neither a necessary party nor a proper party to the proceedings and therefore, the findings rendered by the Court below in this regard do not suffer any perversity warranting the interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

8. Considering the fact that the suit was filed in the year 2019, this Court directs the learned II Assistant Judge, II Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.49 of 2019, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.