B PEDDABBA NAIDU Vs. SUBRAHINANYAM REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A third-party-implead petitioner is the petitioner in this revision. The petitioner in this revision filed an application which was un-numbered as LA. NIL/88 (O.S. No. 36 of 1986) on the file of 1st Addl. District Munsif, Tirupathi for impleading him as second plantiff in the suit. The said application is based on the ground that the debt due on the promissory note dated 29-10-1983 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff is really due to him. It is stated that the petitioner herein and the plaintiff were members of a joint family and there was a partition between them by a registered document dated 11-9-1987 whereunder this particular debt has fallen to the share ot the petitioner in this revision. Therefore, he filed the application for impleading him as the second plaintiff in the suit as he is interested in the subject matter of litigation. The application was not even numbered and without issuance of notice to the plaintiff and the defendant in the suit, the learned Judge dismissed the same on the ground that the dispute between the parties can be decided even without adding the petitioner as the second plaintiff in the suit. I find, as per the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the application for impleading the petitioner as second plaintiff, that he is claiming interest in the subject matter of litigation on the ground that this debt has fallen to his share under the registered partition effected between plaintiffand the petitioner herein on 11-9-1987. In view of the fact that prima facie on the allegations contained in the affidavit filed in support of the application, he claims interest in the subject matter of litigation, in my opinion, the dismissal of the application even before issuance of notice to the parties to the litigation is unsustainable. In view of the fact that he claims interest, I feel it appropriate to set aside the order under revision, remit the matter back to the lower court with a direction to issue notice to the plaintiff as well as the defendant and to give opportunity to them to file counters and then dispose of the matter on merits in accordance with law.

(2.) THE revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted as indicated above. No costs.