V CHANDRASEKHARA REDDY Vs. M KUPPUSWAMY NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (As the stage of admission) This revision petition is filed against the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirupathi in LA. No.398 of 1993 in LA. No.586 of 1990 in O.S. No.318 of 1990. That I.A. was filed under Section 151 C.P.C. to condone the delay in filing the counter in LA. No.586 of 1990. In LA. No.586 of 1990, the prayer was to implead the petitioners herein as plaintiffs 2 to 5 in the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge has allowed the I. A. It is stated that counter has already been filed into the Court.

(2.) On a perusal of the order of the lower Court, it is clear that the only ground on which I.A. No.398 of 1993 was allowed is that having regard to the directions given by this Court in C.R.P. No.379 of 1992 (now reported in M. Kuppuswamy Naidu vs. Parakala Mutt) (1993 (1) ALT 343 = 1993 (1) APLJ 277) the respondent herein (the petitioner in the lower Court) must be given an opportunity to contest I.A. No.586 of 1990, and, therefore, he should be allowed to file the counter. However, the premise on which the lower Court proceeded to dispose of the application is not correct. It is seen from the judgment that the said C.R.P. was filed against the order in I.A. No.101 of 1992 recording compromise between the plaintiff (3rd plaintiff in the suit) and the proposed plaintiffs i.e., the petitioners herein. This Court held that the Court is not competent to pass a decree even if it be a compromise decree, against the strangers and that the implead petition having not been ordered, the petitioners cannot seek or suffer a decree in the suit by way of compromise. The operative part of the judgment reads as follows:

(3.) In the circumstances, I consider it just and proper to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the Additional Subordinate Judge for fresh disposal in the light of what I have observed above. To avoid unnecessary delay as a result of remanding the matter, I direct that the learned Subordinate Judge will near the arguments in the LA. on or before 15-10-1993. Both the learned Counsel submit that the parties will be ready to argue the case on the date fixed. The C.R.P. is allowed accordingly. No costs.