SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(AP) 536

G.RADHA KRISHNA RAO
Atmuri Mahalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
Jagadeesh Traders – Respondent


G. RADHAKRISHNA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners who are third parties filed a petition before the lower Court under Order 1 Rule 10 and Section 151 C. P. C. to implead them as plaintiffs 2 to 5 in the suit. The respondents herein are the defendants in the suit. The learned District Munsif declined to grant permission to the petitioners to come on record on the ground that they have no locus standi to file the petition. Aggrieved against the said older of the learned District Munsif, the petitioners-third parties have filed the present revision petition.

( 2 ) THE suit was filed for recovery of certain amount on the basis of Khata by Ms/. Pattabhi Enterprises against the respondents {herein. The petitioners case is that they are blood relations, 1st petitioner being the wife and petitioners 2 to 4 being the sons of A. Pattabhirama Rao who filed the suit as Managing Partner of Pattabhi Enterprises, that they are also the partners of the said firm along with Pattabhirama Rao and therefore they are also entitled to the amount. The petition was resisted by the defendents on the ground that the firm was not registered by the date of filing of the suit and its subsequent registration will n








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top