SMT SMITA ANAND Vs. SANDESH REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS batch of five Civil Revision Petitions arises between the parties, who are common, in two separate but identical suits. Hence, they are being heard and disposed of together.

(2.) I have heard Sri Sharad Sanghi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri G.Sanjeeva Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.1. Sri Sharad Sanghi, learned Counsel, stated that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not necessary parties. Respondent No.1 has filed OS.Nos.683 and 684 of 2010 against respondent No.2 for recovery of rents and service tax. Respondent No.1 has also filed IA.Nos.4349 and 4351 of 2010 in OS.Nos.683 and 684 of 2010 respectively for attachment of the properties under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ?the Code?). Respondent No.2 has resisted the said applications by stating that he is only a partner in respondent No.3- firm comprising himself and the revision petitioner as its partners. The petitioner has, therefore, filed IA.Nos.4543 of 2010 and 554 of 2011 for impleading the petitioner and respondent No.3 as defendant Nos.2 and 3 in OS.No.683 of 2010 and as respondent Nos.2 and 3 in I.A.No.4349 of 2010.

(3.) AT the hearing, Sri Sharad Sanghi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that as the firm was already added as defendant No.3, there is no necessity for impleadment of the petitioner, who is one of the two partners of the firm, in the suit and other proceedings pending before the Court below. The learned Counsel has referred to Order XXX Rule 1 of the Code in order to substantiate his submission.