CIVIL PROCEDURE — Third party procedure — Civil Justice OrdinanCe 1929,: First Schedule Order VII. Rule 8 (I) (b) — third party joined where defendant could recover part of his losses from plaintiff from third party.

The tenant of cotton scheme land gave a licence to defendant to produce in return for the tenant’s share. Licensee was financed by the Agricultural Bank of Sudan which contracted to pay the tenant’s share for licensee. When tenant sued  for his share, licensee applied for third party procedure to claim over against the  financing Bank.

Held: In a case where if defendant is found liable he would be entitled to recover some portion of the amount from a third party. the third party may be joined as a defendant in third party procedure under Civil Justice Ordinance 1929 First schedule Order VII Rule 8 (I) (b) and the liability of all parties shall be settled in one suit

Advocate  Yousif Abdel Rahman ...for the third party defendant.

S. M.A. Attig. P.J., September 14. 1963:— This is an application for resision of the order of District Judge Malakal dated March 22, 1963 whereby the applicants were join to the suit as co-defendants.

The tenants of Feiwar South Agricultural Scheme are clain their shares in 1960-1961 cotton produce from the licensee (the defendants). The Iicencee  while admitting the tenants’ claim, applied that the applicants be added as co-defendants to this suit basing his claim on an a between himself and the Financing Bank (applicants). wherby the financers undertook to pay the tenants shares of the cotton produce marketed by them.

At the outset. I must say that neither the learned counsel for the applicants nor the District Judge ha a clear idea of the essence of defendants’ application. Defendants are in fact applying for a third party procedure for the addition of the Financing Bank. from whom they claim to be entitled to relief in the suit.

it is true that the tenants are not claiming any part of their shares from the applicants, and they cannot in law do so, as there is no privity of constract and they cannot in any way reap the benefits of the contract between the defendants and the applicants, to which they were not a party. To minimise the cost of litigation and to a duplicity of actions. the defendants

are applying for the third party procedure. This procedure is open to a defendant who, if himself found liable in the action, would he entitled to recoser some portion of the amount which he will ha to pay plaintiff, or from whom the defendant may be entitled to be wholly reimbursed. It also covers all cases in which defendant claims that he is eititled to any remedy or relief relating to or connected with the’ original subject matter of the action and s the same as some relief or remedy claimed by the plaintiff, and also where any question between the defendant and the third party relating to the original  subject matter is substantially the same as some question arising between the plaintiff and the defendants. Civil Justice Ordinance, First Schedule. Order VII, r. 8(I)(h) provides inter alia that the court may at any time: “. . . order that any person whose presence is desirable for a just decision of the suit be made a party to the uit ether as plaintiff or defendant.’’

In this case, it is obviously desirable to bring in the Financing Bank, from whom defendants claiming a remedy. so that the decision as to the liability of the defendaiits and the Financing Bank shall be finally settled in one and the same suit.

Application for revision is summarily dismissed