Telangana High Court
CRP/5833/2009 of Kakara Penta Rao Vs Vegesna Eswara Raju on 31 December 2009
SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CRP NO.5833 of 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 22-7- 2009 passed in IA No.547 of 2007 in OS No.103 of 2007 by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Anakapalle, Vishakapatnam District, allowing the said IA
CRP NO.5833 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:
This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 22-7-2009 passed in IA No.547 of 2007 in OS No.103 of 2007 by the Addl.Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Anakapalle, VishakapatnamDistrict, allowing the said IA filed under Order 1, Rule 10, r/w. Section151 CPC and Rule 28 of civil rules of practice, to add the 1[st] respondentherein as party 3[rd] defendant in the suit and for consequentamendments.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused theimpugned order passed by the Court below.
The case of the 1[st] respondent herein i.e. the third party in thesuit is that he purchased the suit schedule property in item no.2 and theplaintiffs in the suit filed suit against his vendor for permanent injunctionthough he is the true owner of the property under item no.2 and,therefore, he wanted to implead being proper and necessary, asultimately, if without his participation in the suit proceedings, the suit isdecreed, his property rights would be affected.
In this case the suit is filed for permanent injunction and it is apersonal action against the vender of the 1[st] respondent herein, but the1[st] respondent claims to have a direct interest in the subject immovableproperty. In the circumstances, to put a quietest to the issue and toavoid multiplicity of proceedings, the 1[st] respondent has to be added asparty defendant and the impugned order passed by the trial Courtimpleading him does not suffer any illegality or irregularity warrantinginterference by this Court.
The civil revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed atthe admission stage itself.
______________________
Ghulam Mohammed, J