Single-judge order dismissing a civil revision petition under Article 226. The court held that despite the petitioner being impleaded as second respondent, no interference was warranted regarding the impleadment of a third respondent in an interlocutory application.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5648 OF 2009
ORDER:
The petitioner herein, who is the second defendant in the Court below, files this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking to assail the order dated 01.10.2009 allowing I.A.No.1212 of 2009 in I.A.No.851 of 2008 in O.S.No.47 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, wherein the third respondent was sought to be impleaded in I.A.No.851 of 2008, another interlocutory application pending in the suit. The only objection raised by the petitioner in this revision is to the effect that having impleaded as second respondent in the suit, there is no necessity to implead the third respondent in the said application. Hence, the revision.
Having considered the submissions made and on perusal of the material available on record, it is seen that having regard to the fact that the petitioner is the second defendant, there is no necessity for him to be impleaded in all the proceedings, including interlocutory in nature. Hence, I do not find any warrant to interdict with the order of the Court below under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
(B.PRAKASH RAO, J)
1st April 2010 RRB
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Article 227 warrants interference in an order impleading a third respondent given the petitioner is already impleaded as second respondent.
Whether there is necessity to implead the third respondent in an interlocutory application.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
B. Prakash Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
