Kuruguntla Soujanya @ Chinta Soujanya v. Yalaka Sudhakar Reddy

[ 32e6 ]

IN THE H]GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD SATURDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEI'BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 30510F 2023 Petition Under ArTicle 227 of the constitution of lndia against the Order dated O3-O7 -2023 passed in 1.A.No.257 of 2019 in O.S.No.67 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Huzurnagar, Suryapet District. Between:

Kuruguntla Soujanya @ Chinta Soujanya, (D/o. Appi Reddy, R/o.Behind H.No.468/fu5, Near Shiva Towers, Shivasainagar, Khammam Road, Kodad Town and Mandal, Suryapet District.

...Petitioner/Defendant No. I

AND '1. Yalaka Sudhakar Reddy, S/o.Venkata Reddy, Occ. Advocate, R!/ o.H.No.32171 1lA, Nayanagar, Kodad Town and Mandal, Suryapet District. ...RespondenUPlaintiff

2. Chinta Hanuma Reddy, S/o.Late Chandra Reddy, Occ. Agriculture R/o.Gudibanda Village, Kodad Mandal, Suryapet District. ...RespondenUProposed Defendant No.2 lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.67/2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Huzurnagar, pending disposal of the CRP.

lA NO: 2 OF 2023 .., ;,;

., . ,'-_r ..t ..r:

Between:

Yalaka Sudhakar Reddy, S/o.Venkata Reddy, Oc.c. Advocate, R/ o.H.No.3-2171 1/A, Nayanagar, Kodad Town and Mandal, Suryapet District. . . . Petitioner/Respondent No.1

AND Kuruguntla Soujanya @ Chinta Soujanya, (D/o. Appi Reddy, R/o.Behind H.No.468/A/5, Near Shiva Towers, Shivasainagar, Khammam Road, Kodad Town and Mandal, Suryapet District.

...RespondenUPetitioner .if ..;

2. Chinta Hanuma Reddy, S/o.Late Chandra Reddy, Occ. Agriculture R/o.Gudibanda Village, Kodad Mandal, Suryapet District. (R2 not necessary party in this petition) :

...RespondenURespondent, 1,,, . i::'!

.

-j. ..

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the inteiim stay granted on 13-10-2023 and dismiss the lA No.1 of 2023 in C.R.P No.3051 ol 2O23 or else this respondent will be put to irreparable loss and hardship.

'iit:t#;-;, l9i.:a:ir,"'.r:;;:

-!.r- 4 ?1i: i+, , Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri V RAGHU The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY CwIL REVISION PETITION No.3O51 OF 2A23 ORDER:

Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.257 of 2Ol9 in O.S.No.67 of 2016, dated O3.07.2023 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Huzurnagar, Suryapet District, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

2.

The petitioner, who is the defendant in O.S.No.67 of 2076, filed I.A.No.257 of 2Ol9 under Order I Rule lO(2) R/w Section 151 of CPC on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Huzurnagar, Suryapet District seeking to implead her husband i.e., respondent No.2 herein, as party defendant in the said suit. 3.

In the affidavit filed in support of the application to implead respondent No.2 as part5r defendant No.2 in the said suit, the petitioner has stated that there are disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.2 and one Palla Maheshwar Reddy acted as mediator to settle the disputes between them and in that process, respondent No.2 had allegedly executed sale deeds and gift deeds in her favour, but, later lodged a complaint against her stating that he had not executed any such registered documents in her favour. It is the further case

of the petitioner that one palla Maheshwar Reddy filed a suit against her in O.S.No.l94 of 2O1l on the file of the principal District Judge, Nellore and to fire written statement in the said suit, she approached respondent No.l for advice and respondent No. 1 enquired about the previous and present circumstances and as per the instructions of the petitioner, respondent No.l typed two set of papers and did not explain its contents and filed the set of papers in the said case through Sri M.Srinivasulu, Advocate. Later, she came to know that respondent No. 1 prepared the matter against her instructions and typed the same in favour o[ respondent No.2 (her husband) herein. Later, the petitioner filed written statement in Telugu by denying the contents of the suit in O.S.No. 194 of 2Ol 1 filed by one Palla Maheshwar Reddy.

4.

It is the further case of the petitioner that she has submitted a complaint against respondent No. 1 before the Bar Council of State of Andhra pradesh and subsequent to filing the said complaint, the matter was settled under a settlement deed and in view of the compromise, the petitioner did not appear before the Bar Council of State of Andhra pradesh, at Hyderabad and the said complaint was rejected. Due to the complaints filed by the petitioner, respondent No. I contended

a that he lost his reputation in the society and he was also falsely prosecuted before the Bar Council of State of Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad and he sought for damages from the petitioner for alleged malicious prosecution before various authoriLies. 5.

It is the contention of the petitioner that the alleged settlement, dated 21.05.2014 between her and respondent No.2 was prepared by respondent No. 1, as such respondent No.2 is necessary party to the present suit proceedings. 6.

After considering the contentions of both the parties, the Court below while dismissing the petition observed that respondent No.1 has instituted the said suit against the petitioner herein and the said suit was in personal nature and there is no direct or legal interest much Iess equitable interest against the proposed party i.e., respondent No.2, therefore, the question of impleading respondent No.2 as defendant No.2 to the suit as necessary and proper party does not arise. It is further observed that in the absence of respondent No.2, the suit instituted by respondent No. I can be decided effectively and completely. Therefore, the application filed by the petitioner herein to implead respondent No.2 was rightly dismissed by the trial Court. The petitioner being defendant in the suit is always

entitled to put forth her pleadings properly and effectively to satisfy the Court that she is not liable for payment of the damages claimed by respondent No. l.

7'

Since the petitioner is having right to establish her own case independently, this Court is of the view that there is no necessigr to implead respondent No.2 herein as party defendant to the said suit for effective disposal of the suit. 8.

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if petition shall stand closed.

any, pending in this writ SD/.P. PADMANABHA REDDY ;ii ASSISTANT REGISTRAR,I, -cri '

L\:J //TRUE COPY// sEc N OFFICER , To, l. lne $1ior_Civil Judge at Huzurnagar, Suryapet District

2. One CC to Sri P NAGENDRA REDDY, ROvocate tOpUCI

3. One CC to Sri V RAGHU, Advocate tOpUCl

4. Two CD Copies SP MY Rr 'j,-l''.'

, . i:r---..

"-"-: '-i' ''

#++i;

t. ' ,..

HIGH COURT DATED:1811112023 .,,,.. ,.

i-',i;I.-, ,i'

',..'..*,1 r ..1 i- :-!-i.l:.r':, :r:.i ..'.

;it:

'.J..

a?.

,+:'

F- STAI.e 1H ( q loo IrAH 2[24 , (;I t= * oEs

ORDER

PA. icB' j CRP.No.3051 of 2023 .i i.i.'.

'.t l( ai,;

;", l+ a F;, '

DISMISSING THE CRP ri b d.( ffi ;;.:r+!!';-r 'i .r.:.1. .'.9 :

. .:, ]j