Telangana High Court
CRP/5523/2009 of Katta Chitti Babu Vs Mada Rajeswara Rao on 31 December 2009
SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5523 of 2009 Dated:31.12.2009 Between: Katta Chitti Babu. …Petitioner and Mada Rajeswara Rao, And another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5523 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5523 of 2009
Dated:31.12.2009
Between:
Katta Chitti Babu.
and
…Petitioner
Mada Rajeswara Rao,And another.
…Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5523 of 2009
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The petitioner is third party to O.S.No.122 of 2006. The said suit was filedby respondent No.1 for possession and mesne profits. The petitioner filedI.A.No.8 of 2009 under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(CPC), to come on record in O.S.No.122 of 2006 as party defendant. The samewas dismissed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Narsapuram, holding that thepetitioner is neither necessary party nor proper party. Aggrieved by the same, thepresent Civil Revision Petition is filed.
This Court on 05.12.2009 ordered notice to the respondents duly permittingthe petitioner to take out personal notice. Notices are served. None appears forthe respondents, and therefore, the matter is being disposed of ex parte.
The case of the petitioner is that he purchased an extent of 83.6 squareyards with RCC building from the second respondent under an agreement of saledated 09.10.2002 and that when the sale deed was not executed he filedO.S.No.271 of 2008 on the file of the same Court for specific performance ofagreement of sale. In the meanwhile, he came to know that suit is filed againsthis vendor for possession, and therefore, he filed interlocutory application forimpleadment. As indisputably the suit schedule property in the suit filed by thepetitioner and the suit filed by respondent No.1 is the same, to avoid multiplicity, itis better if the petitioner is also impleaded in O.S.No.122 of 2006. Merelybecause he has filed a specific performance suit, the same does not bar nordisqualify him to be proper and necessary party in O.S.No.122 of 2006.
Therefore, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order of the Courtbelow is set aside. I.A.No.8 of 2009 accordingly stands allowed impleading thepetitioner as party defendant No.2 in O.S.No.122 of 2006. The trial Court is alsodirected to club both the suits and conduct common trial. Both suits may bedisposed of within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of thisorder excluding Court vacation period and without seeking extension of time. There shall be no order as to costs.
31.12.2009vs
_______________
(V.V.S.RAO, J)