Dismissed

Kurra Renukamma v. Somanthala Chinna Seshu Reddy

Telangana HC27 Jul 2011CRP/808/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application to implead parties in a partition suit. It held that the revision was not maintainable without notices to relevant respondents and noted that mere rejection of impleadment does not bar adjudication of the suit.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Kurra Renukamma Vs Somanthala Chinna Seshu Reddy — Partition | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:808 OF 2011

DATE:27.07.2011

BETWEEN

KURRA RENUKAMMA

…PETITIONER

AND

SOMANTHALA CHINNA SESHU REDDY & OTHERS

¶9

…RESPONDENTS.

¶10

THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶12

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:808 OF 2011

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

The revision petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 8.8.2010 in I.A.No:133 of 2009 in O.S.No:85 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kovvuru.

¶15

The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.85 of 2008 and she has filed the said suit seeking for partition of the schedule properties. During the pendency of the suit, she filed I.A.133 of 2009 under order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C to implead the proposed party as 5^th

¶16

defendant in the suit.

¶17

The said application is dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed by the petitioner.

¶18

Heard the learned counsel.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the proposed respondent is a bonafide purchaser of the property, in respect of which the suit for partition is filed and with a view to bring the proposed respondent as a party to the proceedings, the petitioner filed the application and therefore, the dismissal of the said application is erroneous and illegal.

¶20

According to the case of the petitioner, she filed the suit against defendants-1 to 3 for partition claiming 1/4^th share and after filing the suit, she came to know that D1 and D3 sold the plaint schedule property to one Kalluru Srinivasulu and she filed an application in I.A.No:657 of 2008 to implead the said Kalluru Srinivasulu as one of the defendants in the suit and later she received a notice from one Isanaka Vijayalakshmi informing that she is the tenant of the petition schedule property and she is in possession and enjoyment of item No:D of the schedule property and therefore, the said Vijayalakshmi is a proper and necessary party to the suit.

¶21

The Court below having observed on point No:1 that inspite of a direction to give notice to respondents-1 to 4, no notice has been issued to them and therefore, the present petition without issuing notices to respondents-1 to 4 is not maintainable and having further observed on point No:2 that even in the absence of the proposed party, the dispute between the parties can be decided, dismissed the petition.

¶22

The fact that remains undisputed is that the suit is filed for partition of the schedule property. In view of the nature of the proceedings, it can be said that mere rejection to implead the proposed party as a party defendant in the suit cannot be an

¶23

impediment to adjudicate the issue involved in the suit proceedings as rightly observed by the court below. Therefore, the order of the Court below, does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity and the revision petition is devoid of merits and consequently, the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶24

Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶25

_________________ Justice G.Chandraiah.

¶26

Gurc. Date:27.7.2011

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶28

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:808 OF 2011

¶29

DATE:27.07.2011

Kurra Renukamma v. Somanthala Chinna Seshu Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kurra Renukamma v. Somanthala Chinna Seshu Reddy

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

G.G.Reddy Vs Apsrtc, Rep. by its Managing Director

D. Suryanarayana Raju S/o Late Sri Rama Raghava Raju Vs Sri Adhar Sinha I a S

SRi.P.Parameswara Rao, Vs Sri Adhar Sinha IAS , The Managing Director

Nammi Venkata Rao (Hindu) Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K. Guravaiah Vs The Kurnool Municipal Corporation

The District Malaria Officer, Vs K. Yadagiri