Civil Revision Petition challenging an impleadment order in a partition suit is dismissed. The Court held that mere impleadment is purposeless without a sought amendment to the suit setting aside a resulting sale deed, leaving such applications for the lower court.
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.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
C.R.P.No.1689 of 2014
Date : 9-7-2014
Between : K. Krishna Reddy and others .. Petitioners and K. Satyanarayana Reddy and others .. Respondents
Counsel for petitioners : Sri A. Ravinder Reddy Counsel for respondents :
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order dated 2-12-2013 in I.A.No.183 of 2013 in O.S.No.603 of 2007 on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.
The petitioners filed the above mentioned suit for partition against respondent Nos.1 to 17. They have filed I.A.No.183 of 2013 for impleading respondent No.18 on the ground that he has been interfering with the petitioners’ possession of the suit property.
At the hearing, Sri A. Ravinder Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that non-applicant No.18 has secured a decree for specific performance of the agreement of sale against respondent No.1 and that he has got sale deed executed. He has however conceded that the petitioners have not sought for amendment of the suit in order to seek setting aside of the sale deed.
In my opinion, unless such relief is sought, mere impleadment of non-applicant No.18 would not serve any purpose. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower Court. However, this order will not preclude the petitioners from filing appropriate application for amendment before the lower Court. This observation shall not be understood as this Court recognising the right of the petitioners to seek amendment of the suit. If such an application for amendment is made,
the same shall be decided by the lower Court on its own merits.
Subject to the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition, CRPMP No.2368 of 2014 filed for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
Date : 9-7-2014
AM
K. Krishna Reddy and others
K. Satyanarayana Reddy and others
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
