M/S Vijaya Durga Estates And Co., ... vs Srfi Kambalapally Karunakar ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2173 Tel

               THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

                 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5993 of 2017
ORDER:

This revision is filed challenging the order dated 17.08.2015 in

I.A.No.302 of 2015 in O.S.No.312 of 2015 passed by the XI Additional

Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. The suit in O.S.No.312 of 2015 is filed for seeking the following

relief:

a. For a declaration that the first plaintiff firm stood dissolved with effect from 19.3.2015; b. Fro direction to the defendants No.1 and 2 to render the true accounts of all the transactions made and monies received or collected by them as partners on behalf of the first plaintiff firm and pay the amounts to the first plaintiff firm;

c. For direction to the defendants No.1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.3,96,24,102/- towards their share in the losses of the first plaintiff firm along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum;

d. For costs.

3. An application in I.A.No.302 of 2015 was filed seeking

attachment before judgment of Item Nos.I and II of the petition

schedule property. Item No.I is the house property bearing No.17-1-

382/N/19, Nagarjuna Colony, Champapet, Hyderabad and item No.II

relates to movable properties including furniture, TV, Fridge,

Air Conditioners etc. The Court below, having considered the

contentions of the petitioners and the respondents, came to the

conclusion that there are no reasonable chances of the

petitioners/plaintiffs succeeding in the suit and also the

petitioners/plaintiffs failed to establish that the

respondents/defendants are making an attempt to remove or dispose

of their assets with an intention of defeating the decree that may be

passed. Having recorded that there was no prima facie case, the Court

below dismissed the application.

4. Mr. M.V. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners,

submitted that the aforesaid IA was filed on 01.05.2015, respondents

No.1 and 2 filed counter on 20.07.2015 and contrary to their stand in

the counter, the sale of item No.I of the petition schedule property was

effected on 29.07.2015 and the impugned order came to be passed on

17.08.2015.

5. It appears during the pendency of this revision, IA.No.1 of 2015

(CRPMP.No.7662 of 2015) was filed to implead the subsequent

purchaser as respondent No.4 herein. Notice was sent to the

respondent No.4 and personal service was also effected by RPAD

through the office of the learned counsel for the petitioners. A memo,

filed vide USR.No.6155 of 2016, discloses that notice was served on

the respondent No.4 on 03.10.2016 as per the track report issued by

the postal department. However, there is no appearance on behalf of

the respondent No.4.

6. On enquiry from this Court, both the learned counsel fairly

agreed for the proposal of this Court that the matter be remitted to

the Court below by directing impleadment of the respondent No.4 as

defendant No.4 in the suit. Be it noted that the respondent No.4,

having purchased the item No.I of the petition schedule property,

is not a party to the suit. Further, the respondents No.1 to 3, who are

the defendants in the suit, do not have any interest as of now in the

petition schedule property and they cannot be permitted to canvass

the interest of the respondent No.4.

7. In the circumstances, this Court is finds it appropriate to set

aside the order dated 17.08.2015 by impleading the respondent No.4

herein as the defendant No.4 in the suit and as the respondent No.4 in

I.A.No.302 of 2015. The Court below shall hear the application filed in

I.A.No.302 of 2015 on merits by giving reasonable opportunity to the

respondent No.4/ defendant No.4 to file his counter. The Court below

shall pass orders on merits in I.A.No.302 of 2015 within a period of six

(6) weeks from the service of notice/summons on the respondent

No.4/ defendant No.4. Any observations made in this order shall not

be construed as an expression of opinion.

In view of the above, the civil revision petition is disposed of.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall

be no order as to costs.

__________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J July 22, 2021 DSK