Partly allowed

Maruthi Steel Traders v. a. Krishna Reddy

Telangana HC3 Sept 2021CRP/1168/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A civil revision petition challenging a family court order granting ex parte impleadment in a civil suit. The High Court held that the lower court erred in failing to record reasons and setting out the legal necessity for the proposed party before granting the request.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of the Family Court allowing ex parte impleadment set aside; matter remanded with direction to give opportunity to all contesting parties to file counter and pass orders on merits recor

Maruthi Steel Traders Vs a. Krishna Reddy — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY. THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEI/BER

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYONE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICEB.VIJAYSEN REDDY}

¶7

CIVIL REVISION^{PETITIONNO : 1 168 OF 2019}

¶8

Petition under Article 227 oI^{the constitution of lndia against the orderof} Family Court -cum- Vll^{AdditionalDistrict and Sessions Judge' Medakat} Sangareddy dated^{15.1 1.2016 in 1.A.No.800of 2016 in O'S'No'37of 2016'}

¶9

B T\'EEN:

¶10

Maruthi Steel Traders

¶11

Represented by its Partner,

¶12

Sri Shyam Kumar, S/o. Late Gheesaram,

¶13

Aged about 69 years. Occ: Business,

¶14

PJo. H.No.5-8-4, Station Road,

¶15

Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶16

Allwin Fumitures,

¶17

A Partnership concern,

¶18

Situated at Nampally, Hyderabad,

¶19

Telangana State,

¶20

One ol its Partner, Smt. Sumithra,

¶21

Wio. Shyarn Kumar. Occ: Business,

¶22

R.ro. FLNo.ll-5-128. Red FIills,

¶23

Ilvderabad.

¶24

(o')

¶25

H.No.5-8-4, C/o. Lepakshi Fumitures,

¶26

Station Road, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶27

....PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NOS.I & 2/DEFENDANT NOS.I & 2

¶28

r\ND

¶29

fa.t.bf, G? A^{l^^l,t'"-t1"21 S'"^;v"r"Iu'} S/r.N.v. Sur"t<t"3v&,^{4AJ5 rt'6 '} I{o,ll ruo. &o8, old^{mtGn'Jr,Bet'-l o"#P'} ?ar a t*--Jo1,uac,n^{<Tv14\ 2' Aq-'kJ'} Sagw"-rJg uw{,

¶30

A. Krishna Reddy, S/o. Late Ram Subba Reddy, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business, IUo, Venkatachala Colony, Nandyal Town, Kumool District.

¶31

Presently residing at Flat No.403,

¶32

Royal Residence, Jai Bharath Nagar,

¶33

tcd.lk-^a--z'L! a{Pd' c-o I'1 rA^r',r, **'6'L'>t shwara Reddv. (or,=D !5 Kumool ,oitl',

¶34

Nizampet Cross Road, Kukatpally,

¶35

Rangaredd District, Rep is GPA holder M. Venkate S(r. Late Ranrchandra Reddy,

¶36

R/o. 15/24-Kl5/5A, Ammena Abbas Nagar, Kumool Presentll' rcsiding at Flat No..{03,

¶37

I^{Ro),a I I{esidence, Jai BharathNagar.}

¶38

Nizarupet Cross Road. Kukatpallr'.

¶39

Ranga Reddl, Distlict.

¶40

RESPONDENT/PI]TITI ONER,/I'LA^INTIFF

¶41

	Ft AL
	2.It4/s.Deccan PipesandTubesLtd, Representedthrough itsDirector, l{.K.I4itha,S/o.B.C. Mirhan, Agedabout 63ycars. Road No.65, I.l.No.1251,JubileeIlills,Hyderabad.
	3.LaxrnisriConstntctions, APannershipbyitsNlanaging partner, Kakarla I{anrKrish-naPrasad, S/o.Pulna ChanderRao, OlllceatPlotNo.265.I(oadNo.l0, JLrbileeHrlls.F.lvderabad.
	-1.Llrxmisri l,rojectsPlt.Ltd l{cpresenredtyits ManagingDirector, Ch. Nagesh,S/o.ShaguanDas, OlficeatPlot No.26518, Road No.10,JubileeHills,Hyderabad.
	5.GaneshGupta,S/o.Madanlal, Agedabout44years,Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.l6,3'dFloor, B.N.Reddy Complex, Basheerbagh,Hyderabad.
	6.SwethaBajpai, W/o.Devandu Bajpai, Agedabout 35 years,^pJo.H.No.l2l7, Y-Block.KidwariNagai, Kanpur. U.P..PIN-208011.
	7.P.Viual.S/o.V.Chandraiah, Agedabout45years,Occ:Business, IUo. Plotr.r-o.153,Laxmi Vihar, I)hasc-[. NallagandlaVillage, Serilingampallyivlandal, li.angal{eddy Disrrict.
	8.V.R..Vigneshrvarl{eddy,S/o.V.R.RamReddy, Agedabout38years,Occ:Business, R/0. l3/86-5, Tadipatri,Block14, Tadipatri Mandal, AnanthapurDistrict.
t	9.U. Gopal,S/o.Adivaiah, Agedabout 34 years,Occ:privateEmployee, IVo.H.No.2-57,IsnapurVillage, PatancheruMandal,MedakDistrict.
t t. 1	10.U. Yadaiah,S/o.V.Ramulu, Agedabout 41 years,Occ:privateEmployee, R/o.H.No.l-64,IsnapurVillage, PatancheruMandal, MedakDistrict.
	11.U. Mangamma,Wlo.LateSrinivas, Agedabout29years,Occ: Housewife, C/0.M.Raju,H.No.3-6217/2,TaraNagar, Serilingampally,RangaIteddyDistrici

¶42

'/,ft /

¶43

¶44

gl 5

¶45

M/s. Sri Sikara Projects,

¶46

i Represented by its Managing partner,

¶47

B. Siddi Reddy, S/o. Malla Reddy,

¶48

Occ: Business. Aged about 56 years,

¶49

tdo. H.No.6-3-841, Near Adnalik Enrerprises, Arneerpet, IJyderabad.

¶50

ij. Vulla ,,\divaiah. S/o. Vulla Naravana, Aged about 75 I ears, Occ: Agriculture, l1/o. Isnapur Villagc, Patanchenr Mandal, ,ledak District.

¶51

Ramulu, S/o. Vulla Narayana, Aged about 65 years, Occ: Agr.iculture, R/0. Isnapur Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District.

¶52

15, Janardhan, S/o. Vullu Narayana, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Agriculture,

¶53

R"/0. Isnapur Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District.

¶54

Smt. Rabia Bee, Wo. Azmath Ali, Aged about 85 years, Occ: Household,

¶55

R/o. H.No.13- I -12351274, Kulsumpura (Post), Zina, AsifNagar, Hyderabad - 500006.

¶56

(Respondent Nos.2 to l6 are not necessary panies in this petition)

¶57

.,..RESPONDENTS/RESPONDIINT NOS.3 TO I7/DEFI]NDANT NOS.] TO^{] 7}

¶58

IAN O: 1OF 2019

¶59

Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be preased to suspend the order in r'A No B00 0f 20'16 in o S.No.37 0f 2016 dated 15.1'1 2016 0n the fire of Famiry court -cum- V'Additionar District and sessions Judge, rVredak at sangareddy.

¶60

Counsel for the petitioners.:. SRI VEDULA ' SRINIVAS, - ' ""' - '-,, Senior Counsel for M/s. VEDULA CHTTRA LEKHA

¶61

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI T. G. PRASAD REDDY

¶62

Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SRI SHYAM S AGARWAL

¶63

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶64

L--

¶65

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶66

CIVIL REVISION pETITION No,1168 of 2019

¶67

ORDER

¶68

This revision is filed challenging the order dated 15.11.2016 in I.A.No.800 of 2016 in O.S.No.37 of 2016 passed by the Judge, Family Court-cum-ViI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

¶69

LA.No,80O of 2016 was filed by the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with section 151 Cpc and Rure 28 of the civir Rures of Practice to implead the respondent No.17 as defendant No.17 in the suit, to add additional relief in the plaint and a ls(l in the pra ye r column, which is relating to the respondent No.17 by way of consequential amendment. The Court below passed the following orde r:

¶70

"Publication filed against R17 and R17 calted absent and no representatron and service held sufficient and R17 set exparte. Other respondents who are on record not filed any counter and no representatjon.

¶71

Heard this is a petition to implead R17 and D17 jn the suit and R17 set exparte in the petition. Hence the petition is allowed.,,

¶72

3 Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submitted that I.A.No,800 of 2016 was filed on 19.10.2016; reasonable opportunity was not given to any oF the defendants including the defendants No.1 and 2 to file counter during hearing. There were several old IAs pending before the Court below and without taking up enquiry in the said IAs, the impugned order was passed in I.A.No.800 of 2016. The Court below did not record any reasons for passing such order. Even jf the defendants remained

¶73

) l

¶74

¶75

ex^parte the Court below ought to have recorded^{reasons and passed} orders on merits.

¶76

Mr. S.S. Bhatt, learned counsel for the^{respondentNo.1/plaintlff} submitted that the trial Court^{allowed LA.No.B00 of 2016as there was} no opposition from the respondents therein^{and no counterwas filed,}

¶77

Heard both sldes.

¶78

This Court is of the view that^{the Court belowought to have} recorded proper reasons before allowing^{I.A.No.B00of2016'} It needs no reiteration that^{the trial Court has to record reasons and} give a finding as to how the^{proposed party is a necessary or proper} party to the suit, before any order is^{passed.The sameis missingin} the impugned order and^{thus, it is liable to be set aside.}

¶79

The civil revision^petition is^{allowed. I'A'No.800of 2016is} remanded back to the Court below^{with a directionto give opportunity} to all the contesting^{partiesto file counter and thereafter, pass orders} on merits by recording^{properreasons. Pending miscellaneous} petitions, lf any, shall stand closed, There^{shall be n70 order as to} costs.

¶80

AVATHI SD/-B.SATY ASSISTANT^REG ISTRAR //TRUE^COPY//

¶81

SECTION^OFFICER

¶82

To, 1. The Judge,^{FamilyCourt -cum- Vll Additional District andSessions Judge'} tvledak at^SangareooY'

¶83

One^{CC to M/s' Vedula Chitra Lekha' AdvocateIOPUC]}

¶84

One^{CC to Sri T G Prasad Reddy' AdvocateIOPUC]}

¶85

One^{CC to Sri Shyam S Agarwal' Advocate[OPUCI}

¶86

Two^{CD CoPies}

¶87

One^{SPare CoPY} gbr

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0310912021

ir6 SlAT€
l$u
cf
??. SIP
L'
+
j ':.' :'

ORDER

CRP.No.1168 of 2019

ALLOWING THE CRP

p7/

Maruthi Steel Traders v. a. Krishna Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maruthi Steel Traders v. a. Krishna 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

Dr. Darbhasayanam Srinivasacharyulu and another Vs The State of Telangana and another

Dulganti Vishnuwardhan Reddy and 63 others Vs The Superintending Engineer/Member Convenor and 3 others

Shaik Mahaboob Ali Vs The Ts Genco

Maruthi Steel Traders Vs a. Krishna Reddy

Maruthi Steel Traders Vs a. Krishna Reddy

Sri. a. Krishna Reddy Vs Maruthi steels