Allowed

Smt.Badavath Aruna v. Dr.K.Ashok

Telangana HC26 Sept 2014CRP/5891/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Civil Revision Petition challenging the dismissal of an application to add a subsequent purchaser as a defendant is allowed. The High Court directs the trial court to admit the petitioner and file a written statement within 15 days, and dispose of the suit expeditiously within three months.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is directed to file a written statement within 15 days; the trial court to add the petitioner and dispose of the suit within three months.

Smt.Badavath Aruna Vs Dr.K.Ashok — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶2

C.R.P. No.5891 OF 2012

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the orders in I.A.No.578 of 2012 in O.S.No.56 of 2005, dated 17.10.2012 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

¶5

2. The revision petitioner filed I.A.No.578 of 2012 in O.S.No.56 of 2005 under Order I rule 10 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short “the CPC”) with a prayer to add her as party defendant. The petition was resisted by the respondent-plaintiff on the ground, the matter is at the stage of arguments and further the petition is filed only to delay the suit and to ultimately defeat the claim of the plaintiff.

¶6

3. Learned Judge by taking into consideration of the judgments of this Court reported in Kuna Ramulu Vs. Kuna Annapurnamm a^[1] and Rudram Builders Vs. Mir Ashrafuddi n^[2] , had dismissed the Interlocutory Application.

¶7

4. Sri Paidi Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client purchased the land, which is the subject matter of the suit schedule land, under a Registered Sale Deed No.8408/2005, dated 08.07.2005 from Smt. Kammari Padma-4^th respondent, who inturn had purchased the same from 2^nd and 3^rd respondents. He would submit that the 4^th respondent, who is the defendant in the suit is contesting the suit and in that process if the suit is not conducted properly, her rights will be defeated and irreparable loss will be caused to her. Further, he would place

¶8

reliance on the judgments reported in Thomson Press (India) Ltd., Vs. Nank Builders & Investors Pvt. Ltd., & Ors.,^[3] to buttress his arguments that in a suit for specific performance the subsequent purchasers can be added as a party-defendant to protect his rights.

¶9

5. The learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondentplaintiff fairly concedes of this legal position. In the circumstances and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgment referred to above, the Revision Petition is liable to be allowed.

¶10

6. Both the learned counsel appearing for the parties would pray considering the fact the suit is of the year 2005 a direction may be given to the Court below to dispose of the suit expeditiously preferably within a period of three months. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to file a written statement within 15 days from today. I consider the request made on behalf of the parties is reasonable.

¶11

7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed at the admission stage. The learned trial Court is directed to add the petitioner herein as the party-defendant. Further, the proposed party is directed to file her written statement within 15 days from the date of the amendments that being carried out by the 1^st respondent-plaintiff. Thereafter, the trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the main suit preferably within three months. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶12

____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J

¶13

Date: 26.09.2014. Ssv

¶14

[1] 2003(3) ALD 146

¶15

[2] 2011 (5) ALD 554

¶16

[3] (2013) 5 SCC 397

Smt.Badavath Aruna v. Dr.K.Ashok

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Badavath Aruna v. Dr.K.Ashok

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. P.Arun Kumari Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

P.R. Narasimha Reddy S/o Rami Reddy Vs The Commissioner, Appeals, O/o the Chief Commissioner

Chatla Triveni, Vs Devaboina Narasavva

Jarpala Gopya , Gopi Vs Smt Usha Rani

Shaik Chan Basha, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary

Dr. Sanjeev Singh Yadav, Vs Smt. Suryakala