The revision petition was allowed, setting aside an order dated 27.03.2018 in I.A.No.10 of 2018 in O.S.No.135 of 2016. The Court held that including the second respondent, to whom the suit property was mortgaged and sold, aids the trial Court in effective adjudication.
Civil Revision Petition allowed; impugned order in I.A.No.10 of 2018 set aside.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3251 of 2018
ORDER:
Heard both sides.
Having regard to the facts of the case and submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent that the subject property of the suit was mortgaged in favour of the second respondent and the same was sold in an auction for realizing all debts due to the second respondent, this Court is of the considered view that the presence of the second respondent in the suit will help the trial Court in adjudicating the suit in an effective manner.
Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 27.03.2018, in I.A.No.10 of 2018 in O.S.No.135 of 2016 passed by the learned V Additional District Judge at Bhongir.
The miscellaneous petitions pending in this Civil Revision Petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J
04.10.2018 vs
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision petition should be allowed to include the second respondent as the suit property was mortgaged and sold to them.
Whether the presence of the second respondent assists the trial Court in the effective adjudication of the suit.
First Respondent
Second Respondent
U.Durga Prasad Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
