Dismissed

Rachapudi Peda Chinnaiah v. Adult Education Welfare Society

Telangana HC23 Aug 2011CRP/372/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed civil revision petitions challenging the dismissal of an application for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC after the suit was withdrawn, and an application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC filed by non-parties. It held that impleadment cannot occur after withdrawal and non-parties cannot file set-aside applications.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 4389 of 2010 and 372 of 2011 dismissed with no order as to costs.

Rachapudi Peda Chinnaiah Vs Adult Education Welfare… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4389 of 2010 and 372 of 2011

¶2

COMMON ORDER:

¶3

Both the revisions arise out of O.S.No.129 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Darsi. The 1^st respondent filed the suit against the 2^nd respondent for the relief of injunction. On 16-08-2010, the petitioners herein filed an application in I.A.No.535 of 2010 under Order I Rule 10 CPC with a prayer to implead them as plaintiffs 2 to 5. On the next day, the 1^st respondent filed a memo seeking permission of the Court to withdraw the suit stating that it recognized the rights of the 2^nd respondent over the suit schedule property. The trial court dismissed the suit as withdrawn on 17-08-2010.

¶4

As the suit was dismissed, the trial court dismissed I.A.No.535 of 2010 through order, dated 17-08-2010. The same is challenged in C.R.P.No.4389 of 2010.

¶5

The petitioners filed an application in C.F.R.No.2641 of 2010 under Order IX Rule 9 CPC with a prayer to set aside the order, dated 17-08-2010. The application was opposed by respondents 1 and 2. The trial court dismissed the said application through order, dated 24-09-2010. The same is challenged in C.R.P.No.372 of 2011

¶6

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶7

It is no doubt true that the petitioners made an effort to get themselves impleaded in the suit in the capacity of being members of the 1^st respondent Society. The fact, however, remains that by the time I.A.No.535 of 2010 was taken up, the 1^st respondent has withdrawn the suit. It is only during pendency of the suit, the third party can make an

¶8

effort to get itself impleaded. Once the suit is disposed of either on merits or otherwise, the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC does not survive at all. Therefore, no exception can be taken for dismissal of I.A.No.535 of 2010.

¶9

After the suit was dismissed, the petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC. It is only a party to the suit that can file an application of that nature. Admittedly, the petitioners are not parties. In case, they felt aggrieved by the decree, the only course open to them either to file a separate suit challenging the decree or institute proceedings before the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001.

¶10

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

¶11

23-08-2011

¶12

Prv

Rachapudi Peda Chinnaiah v. Adult Education Welfare Society

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rachapudi Peda Chinnaiah v. Adult Education Welfare Society

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

Bel Karmika Sangham, Rep byits General Secretary, Vs Bharat Electronics Ltd.

Smt.M.Pushpalatha, Vs Government of a.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary

Nagalla Ramanaiah Vs Nagalla Krishna

Mohd. Omar Farooq Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Seshadri Naidu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B. Raju, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Ltd.