additional issue be considered after amendment of written statement as the entire case runs around the firm - However, these three applications were filed to frame an additional issue as to whether the suits are maintainable without impleading the proper party “Das and Partners”, a registered Firm, as a defendant. The Court below after considering the written statements, found that there were no such pleas in the written statements and without there being a plea and as the promissory notes are said to have been denied, dismissed the applications.= when the suits were filed alleging that the revision petitioner/defendant is the Managing Partner of “Das and Partners” Firm, the question will be as to whether the Firm is a necessary party or not. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the revision petitioner/defendant is permitted to take amendment of the written statement with regard to the above plea sought to be framed as an additional issue, and thereafter, the Court below shall consider and dispose of the suits by framing necessary issue.


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD


MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN

 

PRESENT

 

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO

 

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.6515/2012, 27 & 125/2013

                                                                                

 

Between:

Gadiraju Suryanarayana Raju
..... PETITIONER
And
Katari Srinivasa Varma and 2 others
.....RESPONDENTS



The Court made the following:

                                                                                 

 


THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO

 

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.6515/2012, 27 & 125/2013

COMMON ORDER:

These three revision petitions are filed against the orders passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam in three applications filed under Order 14 Rule-5(1) CPC in three suits viz., O.S.Nos.294/2009, 230/2009 and 231/2009 respectively.
The three suits were filed on the basis of the promissory notes said to have been executed by the revision petitioner herein on behalf of “Das and Partners”.
The revision petitioner/defendant has taken several pleas and pleaded that the promissory notes are not supported by consideration. However, these three applications were filed to frame an additional issue as to whether the suits are maintainable without impleading the proper party “Das and Partners”, a registered Firm, as a defendant.
The Court below after considering the written statements, found that there were no such pleas in the written statements and without there being a plea and as the promissory notes are said to have been denied, dismissed the applications.
In fact, there are several allegations made in the written statements touching on the dealings between the plaintiffs and the defendant, and therefore, in view of the above circumstances, when the suits were filed alleging that the revision petitioner/defendant is the Managing Partner of “Das and Partners” Firm, the question will be as to whether the Firm is a necessary party or not. 
Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the revision petitioner/defendant is permitted to take amendment of the written statement with regard to the above plea sought to be framed as an additional issue, and thereafter, the Court below shall consider and dispose of the suits by framing necessary issue.
Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and these three Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of.  Pending miscellaneous petitions in these three civil revision petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.  No order as to costs.

____________________________
N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J
Dated: 11.03.2013
Dsr

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.