Dismissed

M/s. Urvasi Enterprises, Rajahmundry v. Runkani Venkateswara Rao

Telangana HC27 Aug 2010CRP/2598/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common order dismissing revisions against the impleadment of third parties (leasees and purchasers) as respondents in a suit concerning partnership management and property partition. The court held the impleadment was proper to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs. Civil Revision Petitions Nos.2598 & 2599 of 2010 dismissed.

M/s. Urvasi Enterprises, Rajahmundry Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2598 & 2599 of 2010

¶3

Between: M/s.Urvasi Enterprises and another

¶4

… Petitioners

¶5

And Runkani Venkateswarrao and others

¶6

… Respondents

¶7

This Court made the following:

¶8

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY

¶9

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2598 & 2599 of 2010

¶10

COMMON ORDER: -

¶11

These two revisions are filed to revise the orders of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry in I.A.Nos.1297 and 1413 of 2009 in O.S.No.584 of 2009, dated 02.06.2010.

¶12

Petitioners/plaintiffs instituted the suit O.S.No.584 of 2009 against the 4^th to 7^th respondents/defendants, who are the partners of the 1^st plaintiff firm, for declaration that the 2^nd plaintiff being the managing partner of the 1^st plaintiff empowered to manage the affairs of the 1^st plaintiff firm; for mandatory injunction directing them to restore and handover the management and control of plaint ‘A’ schedule properties to the 2^nd plaintiff; for a direction to the defendants to render the account of the income realized by them from the ‘A’ schedule properties; for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from entering into any contracts or transactions; and for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them and their agents from ever

¶13

interfering with the 2^nd plaintiff’s management and control of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property.

¶14

The 1^st to 3^rd respondents in C.R.P.No.2598 of 2010, who obtained lease from the 4^th to 7^th respondents/partners for carrying the business of trade in sale of eatables in the theatre complex, filed I.A.No.1297 of 2009 to implead them as party respondents to the suit claiming that they are licencees as per the agreement dated 01.07.2009 and, therefore, they are proper and necessary parties for adjudication of the above suit. Similarly, the 1^st to 3^rd respondents in C.R.P.No.2599 of 2010, filed I.A.No.1413 of 2009 to implead them as party-respondents claiming that they entered into an agreement of sale, dated 27.07.2009, with the 4^th to 7^th respondents for a valid consideration in respect of B- schedule property and therefore, they are interested in the subject matter of ‘B’ schedule property.

¶15

On allowing the said I.As., the present petitions are filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that when the 4^th to 7^th respondents earlier filed O.S.No.121 of 2003 for declaration that the 2^nd plaintiff ceased to be the managing partner and when the same was dismissed by the trial court, they forcibly took possession of the management and created third party rights. Therefore, the 1^st to 3^rd respondents in both the C.R.Ps., are not entitled to be impleaded as party-respondents, since it is a dispute among the partners of the 1^st petitioner firm.

¶17

I see no force in the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners for the simple reason that when the 4^th to 7^th respondents, who were in management of the firm against whom the petitioners are seeking permanent injunction, created third party rights in favour of the petitioners in the above I.As., and when the petitioners in I.A.No.1297 of 2009 already filed an independent suit, to claim their rights under the lease agreement entered between the partners of the firm, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the trial court properly exercised the discretion to implead them as party-respondents to the main suit, which does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality to be corrected in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court.

¶18

Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

_________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J

¶20

27^th August 2010 lmv

M/s. Urvasi Enterprises, Rajahmundry v. Runkani Venkateswara Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Urvasi Enterprises, Rajahmundry v. Runkani Venkateswara Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Anitha, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Sho., Kukatpalli P.S

Taniya, Vs Smt. Sayeeda Sadiya Tabasum

G.Venkateswara Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Sho., Kukatpalli Ps.

Kuntheti Venkata Subba Rao , Subba Rao, Vs The State of A.P.

M/s. Urvasi Enterprises, Rajahmundry Vs Iyyapu Madhava Rao

Velga Ammi Raju [Died] LRs Vs Velaga Manikyala Rao