MEKAPATI SREE KEERTHI REDDY vs KODURU VENKATA SANATH KUMAR REDDY

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Online)(AP) 8431

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRSENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 352 OF 2023 Between:
1. MEKAPATI SREE KEERTHI REDDY W/o Late M. Goutham Reddy Occupation. Household, Aged about 47 years, R/o 8-2-293/82/A/963, Road No. 48, Jublee Hills, Beside Chirec School, Hyderabad -500033.
2. Mekapati Sai Ananya Reddy D/o Late M. Goutham Reddy Occupation. Student, Aged about 23 years R/o 8-2-293/82/A/963, Road No. 48, Jublee Hills, Beside Chirec School, Hyderabad -500033.
3. Mekapati Krishnarjun Reddy, S/o Late M.Goutham Reddy Occupation. Student, Aged about 20 years, R/o 8-2-293/82/A/963, Road No. 48, Jublee Hills, Beside Chirec School, Hyderabad -500033.
4. Mekapathi Mani Manjari W/o M. Raja Mohan Reddy Mother of Late M.Goutham Reddy, Occupation. House Wife, Aged about 73 years, R/O Plot No. 188, Road NO. 13, Jublee Hills, Hyderabad-500033.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND:
1. KODURU VENKATA SANATH KUMAR REDDY S/o Venugopal Reddy Aged about 49 years, Occupation. doing as contractor R/o Lakshmipuram Nellore.
5. Sri. Maramreddy Sriharinath Reddy S/o Venkatarama Reddy Aged about. 50 years, Occupation. doing as contractor R/o Gundalammapalem Village, Kodavaluru Mandalam SPSR Nellore District.
6. M/s KMC Construction Limited Having its registered office at Survey No.
37G-40, Shilpa Homes Layout Near Nasar Boys High School, Gatchibowli, Hyderabad.
Represented by a) Late MekapathiGoutham Reddy S/o M.Raja Mohan Reddy Managing Director b) Mekapati Raja Mohan Reddy S/o Venku Reddy Whole time Director c) MekapatiRajagopal Reddy S/o Venku Reddy Whole time Director
7. M/s K.M.C Construction Limited Branch Office at 24-03-205, Adarshnagar, Dargamitta, Nellore-4, Represented by its Managing Director and other Directors
8. Late Mekapati Goutam Reddy S/o M.Rajamohan Reddy
9. Mekapati Raja Mohan Reddy S/o Venku Reddy
10. Mekapati Rajagopal Reddy S/o Venku Reddy ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner(s): G SETHU RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: C SUBODH The Court made the following: ORDER 2023:APHC:19227 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.352 OF 2023 Between:-
1. Mekapati Sree Keerthi Reddy W/o.Late M.Goutham Reddy, Occupation: Household, aged about 47 Years, R/o.8-2- 293/82/A/963, Road No.48, Jublee Hills, Beside Chirec School, Hyderabad and three others.
… Petitioners Versus
1. Koduru Venkata Sanath Kumar Reddy S/o.Venugopal Reddy, Aged about 49 Years, Occupation: Contractor, R/o.Dr.No.3/291, Near Jayabheri Apartments, Lakshmipuram, Nellore and six others.
…Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri G.Seethu Rama Rao Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Sri C.Subodh

ORDER

Aggrieved by the Order in I.A.No.198 of 2022 in O.S.No.91 of 2013 on the file of I-Additional District Judge, Nellore the above revision is filed.

02. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein being the plaintiffs filed O.S.No.91 of 2013 against five defendants seeking recovery of amount. Defendant No.3 in the suit died pending the suit on 21.02.2022 leaving behind him, his wife, daughter and son and others as legal representatives. I.A.No.198 of 2022 is filed under Order XXII Rule 4 read with Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice to add the proposed parties as defendant Nos.6 to 9. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended that pending the suit, Defendant No.3 died on 21.02.2022 leaving behind him, his wife, daughter son and mother. For proper adjudication they are necessary party.

Hence the application is filed to bring them on record.

03. Proposed parties filed counter and opposed the application. In the counter it was contended that the company is a juristic person being run by Directors. Directors are not personally liable for debts of the company. There is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the deceased/defendant No.3. Defendant No.3, infact, resigned as Managing Director of the first defendant and prayed this Court to dismiss the application.

04. The trial Court by order dated 05.11.2022 allowed the petition and impleaded legal representatives of deceased/3rd defendant as defendant Nos.6 to 9. Aggrieved by the same the present revision is filed.

05. Heard Sri G.Seethu Rama Rao learned counsel for petitioners and Sri C.Subodh learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

06. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 1st defendant is a company and defendant No.3 is nothing to do with the company. Suit is filed for recovery of amount alleging that plaintiffs have done works as sub-contracts. 3rd defendant resigned as Managing Director of the Company. However, he was shown as party defendant in the suit. It also contended that the proposed legal representatives of deceased/Defendant No.3 have nothing to do with the affairs of the company and hence they need not be shown party in the suit. However, the trial Court without considering these aspects allowed the application.

07. Counsel appearing for the respondents would support the order of the trial Court.

08. Suit O.S.No.91 of 2013 was filed for recovery of amount against the first defendant company represented by Managing Director and other whole-time Directors and three individuals. Pending the suit 3rd defendant died on 21.02.2022. Defendant No.3 since died, pending the suit application was filed to bring the LRs on record. Whether the Directors of the company are liable or not will be decided at a later stage after the evidence has been let in by the parties. At this stage the Court is only to consider the application to bring the legal representatives of the deceased on record since the 3rd defendant died pending the suit. 3rd defendant, infact, filed written statement raised all the pleas. Bring the legal representatives on the death of one of the party defendants will not amount to miscarriage of justice warranting interference of this Court under Art 227 of the Constitution of India.

09. Counsel for the petitioner during the arguments informed this Court that trial in the suit is in progress. It is open to the parties to raise all grounds in the suit. there are no merits in the revision and revision is liable to be dismissed.

10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this case, shall stand closed.

__________________________

SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J Date : 09.05.2023 klns THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Civil Revision Petition No.352 of 2023 Date : 09.05.2023 klns

Click Here to Read the rest of this document