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