RAVIPATI HARISCHANDRA PRASAD Vs. MANDA SURYA KANTHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It appears that three suits are pending between the parties being O.S. Nos. 220 of 2001,8 of 2002 and 10 of 2003. In these suits, applications came tobe filed by the defendant for addition of two more defendants, which were rejected by the trial Court and dismissed. Three revision petitions have been filed against the orders passed by the trial Court being C.R.P. No. 4261 of 2002, C.R.P. No. 4344 of 2003 and C.R.P. No. 4751 of 2003. C.R.P. No. 4261 of 2003 has been allowed by a learned single Judge of this Court on 11-08-2003, whereas the present revision petitions came up for hearing before another learned single Judge of this Court who disagreed with the order in C.R.P. No. 4261 of 2002 and made a reference. The learned single Judge held,

(2.) It appears that the learned single Judge did not differ with the earlier order of the learned single Judge on merits, but on the principle whether a defendant could seek impleadment of another defendant in the suit because the learned single Judge stated,

(3.) So what we understood from the order of reference basically is that we have to decide the question whether at the instance of a defendant another party can be added as a party in a suit. Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of C.P.C., lays down,