Dismissed

Khadi and Village Industries Commission, rep.b y its v. The Karya Vidyalaya, rep. by its Secretary

Telangana HC26 Oct 2009CRP/337/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application for impleadment as a necessary party in a rent recovery suit. The court held no flaw warranted interference under Article 227. An interim stay order was vacated.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition was dismissed and the interim stay order was vacated.

Khadi and Village Industries Commission… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶2

C.R.P.No. 337 of 2008

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 22.10.2007 passed in I.A.No. 1351 of 2006 in O.S.No. 174 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, whereby and whereunder the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the Application filed by the petitioner herein under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C.

¶5

The background facts of the case in a nut shell that lead to filing of the Civil Revision Petition by the petitioner being the 3^rd party to the suit proceedings are:

¶6

Madanapalle Hand-Spinners and Weavers Co-operative Society Limited is the owner of the suit schedule property. The Karya Vidyalaya represented by its Secretary took the suit premises on lease. Thereafter, they sub-leased the premises to the Deputy Director, Social Welfare Department, Collectorate, Chittoor, for running a social welfare hostel for boys. The Karya Vidyalaya represented by its Secretary filed O.S. No. 85 of 1999 for recovery of rents. The said suit was filed against the Deputy Director, Social Welfare Department, Chittoor, the Warden, Social Welfare Boys Hostel, Madanapalle, the Director, Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Hyderabad and the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the District Collector, Chittoor. The said suit ended in decree in favour of the Karya Vidyalaya represented by its Secretary. The Deputy Director, Social Welfare Department and the Warden, Social Welfare Hostel, Madanapalle were directed to deposit the suit amount of Rs.1,37,073/within three months from the date of the judgment. Subsequently, the Karya Vidyalaya represented by its Secretary filed O.S.No. 174 of 2005 for recovery of rents for the period from 01.08.1991 to

¶7

31.10.2005. Pending the suit, the petitioner herein filed I.A.No. 1351 of 2006 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. seeking its impleadment as the 4^th defendant in the suit. The plaintiff resisted the Application by filing counter. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to dismiss the Application, by order dated 22.10.2007. Hence, this Revision.

¶8

While admitting the Revision, the interim stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No. 174 of 2005 came to be granted on 07.02.2008. Respondent Nos. 1 and 5 in this Revision have filed vacate stay petition being C.R.P.M.P. No. 5130 of 2009 with a prayer to vacate the interim order, dated 07.02.2008 passed in C.R.P.M.P.No. 430 of 2008. When the vacate stay petition came for consideration, with the consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, the Civil Revision Petition is taken up for disposal.

¶9

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 5/plaintiffs.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the original owner of the premises, which is in occupation of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein and since Respondent Nos. 1 and 5 herein filed the suit for recovery of the arrears of rent, the petitioner is a necessary party to the proceedings, for proper adjudication of the issue involved in the suit. A further submission has been made that on an earlier occasion, the 3^rd defendant herein is the party to the proceedings and even on that count also, the petitioner herein is a necessary party to the present suit being O.S.No. 174 of 2005 for proper adjudication of the issue involved in the suit.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 5/plaintiffs submits that the suit was filed for recovery of the arrears of

¶12

rent and it is not for declaration of title and if the petitioner herein has any claim over the property, he has to institute a separate suit and indeed, a separate suit has already been instituted and is stated to be pending in CFR stage.

¶13

Respondent Nos. 1 and 5 herein earlier filed O.S. No. 85 of 1999 for recovery of the arrears of rent. Indisputably, the premises is in occupation of the Social Welfare Department, wherein boys hostel is being run. According to the plaintiffs, they are lessees from Madanapalle Hand-Spinners and Weavers Co-operative Society Limited and they sub-leased the premises to Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in the suit. The scope of the suit is only recovery of the arrears of rent from 01.08.1991 to 31.10.2005. The rival claims made by the petitioner cannot be gone into in the suit filed by Respondent Nos.1 and 5/plaintiffs. The trial Court has considered this aspect in right perspective and proceeded to dismiss the Application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. I do not see any flaw in the order impugned warranting interference of this Court, in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶14

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 07.02.2008 passed by this Court in C.R.P.M.P.No. 430 of 2008 shall stand vacated.

¶15

------------------------------------

¶16

(B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J)

¶17

26^th October 2009

¶18

ksld

Khadi and Village Industries Commission, rep.b y its v. The Karya Vidyalaya, rep. by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khadi and Village Industries Commission, rep.b y its v. The Karya Vidyalaya, rep. by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdullah Bin Ahmed, Vs Syed Chand

Arukula Mallikarjuna, Vs The State of A.P.

Smt.Radha rani Vs N.P.Sunil Kumar

M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited Vs K. Menakamma

Gurram Venkata Surya Prakasa Rao Vs Uppala Lalitha Devi

Bolla China Venkanna Vs Dasari Sri Ramulu