Dismissed

Smt. Smitha Anand, v. v.Sandesh Reddy

Telangana HC20 Jan 2012CRP/4476/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed five civil revision petitions challenging orders allowing the impleadment of the petitioner and an opposing party as partners in a firm. The Court held that Order XXX Rule 1 mandates impleadment of firm partners to ensure transparency and prevent collusion.

What did the court decide?

All Civil Revision Petitions dismissed; interim orders vacated and pending civil miscellaneous petitions dismissed.

Smt. Smitha Anand, Vs v.Sandesh Reddy — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

*** The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy**

¶2

+ Civil Revision Petition Nos.4476, 4510, 4597, 5054 & 5055 of 2011

¶3

% Date: 20-01-2012

¶4

(CRP.No.4476 of 2011)

¶5

Between:

¶6

# Smt.Smita Anand

¶7

..... Petitioner

¶8

AND

¶9

$ Sri V.Sandesh Reddy and 2 others

¶10

.....Respondents

¶11

^ Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Sharad Sanghi ! Counsel for Respondent No.1: Mr.G.Sanjeeva Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3: -----

¶12

< Gist:

¶13

> Head note:

¶14

? Cases referred:

¶15

The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy

¶16

Civil Revision Petition Nos.4476, 4510, 4597, 5054 & 5055 of 2011

¶17

Date: 20-01-2012

¶18

Common Order:

¶19

This batch of five Civil Revision Petitions arises between the parties, who are common, in two separate but identical suits. Hence, they are being heard and disposed of together.

¶20

I have heard Sri Sharad Sanghi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri G.Sanjeeva Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.1.

¶21

Sri Sharad Sanghi, learned Counsel, stated that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not necessary parties.

¶22

Respondent No.1 has filed OS.Nos.683 and 684 of 2010 against respondent No.2 for recovery of rents and service tax. Respondent No.1 has also filed IA.Nos.4349 and 4351 of 2010 in OS.Nos.683 and 684 of 2010 respectively for attachment of the properties under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’). Respondent No.2 has resisted the said applications by stating that he is only a partner in respondent No.3- firm comprising himself and the revision petitioner as its partners. The petitioner has, therefore, filed IA.Nos.4543 of 2010 and 554 of 2011 for impleading the petitioner and respondent No.3 as defendant Nos.2 and 3 in OS.No.683 of 2010 and as respondent Nos.2 and 3 in I.A.No.4349 of 2010.

¶23

At the hearing, it has come out that respondent No.1 has also filed IA.No.983 of 2011 to implead the said persons

¶24

in an interlocutory application, filed under Order XV-A of the Code. Similarly, respondent No.1 has filed IA.Nos.4453, 4454 & 4455 of 2010 to implead the petitioner and respondent No.3 as defendant Nos.2 and 3 in OS.No.684 of 2010 and as respondent Nos.2 and 3 in IA.No.4351 of 2010 and another interlocutory application filed under Order XV-A of the Code.

¶25

The petitioner has filed counter-affidavits opposing the said applications.

¶26

By Common Orders, dated 04-08-2011, the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, has allowed all those applications whereby impleadment of the petitioner and respondent No.3 as defendant Nos.2 and 3 and respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the suits and the IAs referred to above respectively was ordered. Assailing those Common Orders, the petitioner herein, who is added as defendant No.2 and respondent No.2 in the suits and the IAs respectively, filed these Civil Revision Petitions.

¶27

At the hearing, Sri Sharad Sanghi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that as the firm was already added as defendant No.3, there is no necessity for impleadment of the petitioner, who is one of the two partners of the firm, in the suit and other proceedings pending before the Court below. The learned Counsel has referred to Order XXX Rule 1 of the Code in order to substantiate his submission.

¶28

Sri G.Sanjeeva Reddy, learned Counsel for respondent No.1, while opposing the above submission,

¶29

submitted that the order, impleading the petitioner and respondent No.3 to the suits and other proceedings, is in conformity with the provisions of the Code and that the provisions of Order XXX Rule 1 lend support to the orders passed by the Court below instead of helping the cause of the petitioner.

¶30

I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶31

It is not in dispute that the petitioner and respondent No.2 are partners of respondent No.3- firm. The suits were initially instituted by respondent No.1 against respondent No.2, who is one of the two partners of respondent No.3firm. When respondent No.2 has sought to take advantage of non-impleadment of the petitioner, who is the other partner, and respondent No.3, which is the firm, respondent No.1 has filed the applications for impleadment of the left out partner i.e., the petitioner and the firm itself.

¶32

Order XXX Rule 1 of the Code envisages that any two or more persons claiming or being liable as partners and carrying on business may sue or be sued in the name of the firm, of which such persons were partners at the time of the accruing of the cause of action, and any party to a suit may in such case apply to the Court for a statement of the names and addresses of the persons, who were at the time of the accruing of the cause of action, partners in such firm, to be furnished and verified in such manner as the Court may direct. This provision, thus, contemplates that when a suit is

¶33

to be instituted by or against the firm, two or more persons have to necessarily represent the firm. The obvious legislative intent behind such stipulation is that, since a partnership firm comprises two or more partners, no legal proceeding shall be instituted without the knowledge of atleast two partners of the firm, to avoid any collusion between one of the partners of the firm with a third party to the detriment of the interests of other partners and to ensure transparency in the affairs of the partnership firm.

¶34

In the instant case, respondent No.1 has sought impleadment of the petitioner, who is, admittedly, a partner of respondent No.3- firm, besides impleadment of the firm itself. The Orders of the Court below, allowing the applications of respondent No.1, for impleadment of the petitioner and respondent No.3, are, thus, in conformity with the provisions of Order XXX Rule 1 of the Code. Therefore, I do not find any error, jurisdictional or otherwise, in the orders of the lower Court warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶35

For the above-mentioned reasons, all the Civil revision Petitions are dismissed.

¶36

Interim orders, if any, passed in all these Civil Revision Petitions stand vacated and the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending therein, stand dismissed.

¶37

______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)

¶38

20^th January, 2012

¶39

Note:

¶40

1.CC in one week. 2.LR copy. (B/o) LUR

Smt. Smitha Anand, v. v.Sandesh Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Smitha Anand, v. v.Sandesh 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

M.A. Jahangir Vs Javeed parvaz

Inampudi Krupa Madhuri Vs Sri Gadde Adinarayana

B.Kishan, Vs Omprakash

J.Damodar, Vs C.ramu Yadav

M/S Shriram Chits [P] Limited, Vs P.Sridhar

Ch. Srinivas Vs Muraj Ahmed Khan