Telangana High Court
CRP/811/2014 of Julakanti Annapurna, Vs Julakanti Sri Hari on 31 December 2014
SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.811 OF 2014 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order and decree, dated 26.04.2013, in I.A.No.662 of 2012 in Original Suit No.112 of 2012 passed by the I Additional Senior
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.811 OF 2014
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, under Article 227 of the Constitutionof India, is directed against the order and decree, dated 26.04.2013, inI.A.No.662 of 2012 in Original Suit No.112 of 2012 passed by the IAdditional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.
2. Petitioners herein/plaintiffs filed the aforesaid InterlocutoryApplication to implead the State Bank of India as respondent No.7 inthe main suit, as it is a necessary party and for consequentialamendment thereof. The said petition was dismissed on the groundthat bank is not a necessary and proper party to the suit filed forpartition and the suit can be adjudicated even in the absence ofproposed party. Challenging the same, the present Civil RevisionPetition is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that bank is anecessary and proper party to the suit filed for partition and in itsabsence an effective decree cannot be passed and hence, he prays toallow the Civil Revision Petition.
4. Under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, aparty can be impleaded at any stage provided that the proposed partyhas got some semblance of right in the suit. Suit has filed for partitionof properties. State Bank of India is not all relevant party for thepurpose of deciding the issue involved in the suit. If the petitioners areaggrieved with regard to the measures taken by the Bank, they canapproach the concerned Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing anapplication under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.
5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Thereshall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendingin this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
______________________
JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
DECEMBER 31, 2014YVL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
YVL
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.811 OF 2014
DATE:31.12.2014