P SATYANARAYANA Vs. P KONDAMMA
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
M Seetharama Murti, J. -
(1.)These two Civil Revision Petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the unsuccessful 1strespondent/plaintiff are filed assailing separate orders, both dated 23.11.2018, of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla, passed in I.A.no.920 of 2018 in O.S.no.103 of 2018&in I.A.no.921 of 2018 in I.A.no.499 of 2018 in the said suit.
(2.)I have heard the submissions of Ms. Pulipati Radhika, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/plaintiff ('plaintiff', for brevity); and, of Smt. NimmagaddaRevathi, learned counsel appearing for the proposed party/proposed 4th defendant ('proposed 4th defendant', for brevity)in both the revisions.I have perused the material record.
2.1 The parties in this revision shall hereinafter be referred to as plaintiff and defendants as arrayed in the suit and the 1st respondent/proposed party shall be referred to as the proposed 4th defendant.
(3.)The introductory facts, in brief, are as follows:
The sole plaintiff instituted the suit against the defendants 1 to 3 for perpetual injunction in respect of the house property in an extent of Ac.0.55 cents in Karlapalem village. Some of the defendants are resisting the suit. In the said suit, the proposed 4th defendant filed the subject interlocutory applications in the suit as well as in the pending interlocutory application, i.e., I.A.no.499 of 2018 for her impleadment as 4 th defendant in the suit and party respondent inthesaid interlocutory application. The plaintiff filed a counter and resisted the subject applications. By the order impugned, the trial Court allowed both the petitions and directed impleadment of the proposed party as 4th defendant in the suit and as party respondent in the pending interlocutory application.Aggrieved thereof, the plaintiff filed these two revisions.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.