Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Mills ... vs Grandhi Naveen Babu on 31 October, 2022
29
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE: A.S.No.321 of 2020
PROCEEDINGS SHEET
Sl. DATE ORDER OFFICE
No. NOTE
(Through physical mode)
31.10.2022 I.A.No.2 of 2020
This is an application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 read with
Section 151 of C.P.C., for bringing the additional evidence on
record.
This application shall be considered at the time of final disposal
of the appeal.
I.A.No.3 of 2020
This is an application seeking leave to prefer the present
appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated
17.12.2019 in O.S.No.39 of 2014 on the file of the Special Judge
for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-Cum-IV Additional
District & Sessions Judge at Srikakulam.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The above suit was filed by a partner of a Partnership Firm
styled as M/s. Grandhi Enterprises seeking to pass a preliminary
decree for partition of the plaint schedule properties into 100
shares by metes and bounds; for directing partition of the schedule
under Vasavi Theatre into 100 shares and allotting 15 shares to the
plaintiff and for other consequential reliefs.
By way of preliminary decree under challenge, the suit has
been decreed on the basis of the compromise between the parties.
According to the present appellant, the original firm was
reconstituted by inducting the present appellant as one of the
partners and allotting 20% shares to it vide partnership deed dated
19.11.2008, however, without impleading the appellant, the suit
has been filed and the entire property of the erstwhile firm has
Sl. DATE ORDER OFFICE
No. NOTE
been distributed amongst the parties to the suit.
Mr. P. Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel, appearing for the
appellant, would submit that the compromise decree has been
obtained by collusion and playing fraud.
Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/plaintiff and
the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10
& 11/defendant Nos.3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 and the legal heirs of
respondent Nos.7 & 9/defendant Nos.6 & 8, would submit that
neither the suit was filed against the partnership firm nor the
partnership deed dated 19.11.2008 was registered in accordance
with law, and no right was created in favour of the appellant on
the basis of the unregistered partnership deed and therefore, the
present appeal is not maintainable. It is also submitted that
whether or not the decree is collusive or the suit was not
maintainable cannot be agitated by the present appellant as deed
of partnership sought to be relied upon by it was not registered.
Considering the arguments and the material on record, we are
inclined to grant leave to the appellant to prefer this appeal for the
reason that there is some document executed in favour of the
appellant allotting 20% shares. The effect of non-registration of
partnership deed shall be examined when the appeal itself is
heard. For the time being, if the appellant is not permitted to
prefer this appeal, there will be multiplicity of proceedings, and
further the interest of the appellant shall be defeated in case the
preliminary decree is executed.
For all the above reasons, this application is allowed.
I.A.No.4 of 2022
This application was allowed on 06.04.2022. This is listed
wrongly today.
Sl. DATE ORDER OFFICE
No. NOTE
I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2022
I.A.No.1 of 2022 has been filed seeking to condone the delay
of 694 days in bringing the legal representatives of respondent
No.7 on record.
I.A.No.2 of 2022 has been preferred seeking to set aside
abatement against deceased respondent No.7 and proposed
respondent Nos.15 to 18, who are legal heirs of respondent No.7.
Perusal of the proceeding sheet goes to show that by order
dated 06.04.2022, this Court has already allowed the applications
viz., I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2022, which were filed seeking to implead
respondent Nos.15 to 22 as legal representatives of deceased
respondent Nos.7 and 9. Therefore, I.A.No.2 of 2022 and I.A.No.1
of 2022 are impliedly considered and allowed while allowing the
above applications for impleadment of legal representatives of
respondent Nos.7 and 9.
Accordingly, both the applications stand allowed.
Consequently, the delay of 694 days in bringing the legal
representatives of respondent No.7 is condoned and the
abatement against respondent No.7 and proposed respondent
Nos.15 to 18 is set aside.
I.A.No.1 of 2020
This is an application for stay of all further proceedings in
O.S.No.39 of 2014 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of
Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-IV Additional District Judge
at Srikakulam.
Since the interim order passed in favour of the appellant is in
operation, the said interim order is made absolute and the same
shall remain in operation during pendency of this appeal.
Accordingly, this application is closed.
A.S.No.321 of 2020
Post this appeal in the first week of December, 2022.
Sl. DATE ORDER OFFICE
No. NOTE
Learned counsel for the appellant shall make available the
original documents, which were referred to in the application filed
under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC.
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J
Nn
