M PRABHAKAR REDDY Vs. JAGADISH PRAKASH VIJAYAWARGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Civil Revision Petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 4-4-2003, passed by the 1 Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy, allowing the application I.A.No.141 of 2003 in O.S.No.135 of 2002, filed by the plaintiff- respondent No.1 herein, seeking his impleadment as defendant No.6 to the suit.

(2.) Respondent No.1 filed suit O.S.No.135 of 2002 for dissolution of partnership firm, namely respondent No.6-Green Acres Poultry Farm and obtained an order of injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties agains the defendant Nos.1 to 3 therein. It is the case of respondent No.1 that the suit properties belong to the partnership firm, and that defendant Nos.1 and 2 sold the suit schedule properties in favour of one M. Prabhakar under registered agreement of sale-cum-G.P.A., and therefore, he filed the present I.A. seeking his impleadment as a necessary and proper party to the said suit. Aggrieved by the order passed by the court allowing the said I.A., the petitioner who was impleaded as defendant No.6 to the suit, filed the present C.R.P.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner is neither a partner in the partnership firm nor has anything to do with partnership firm for he has purchased the suit schedule A, B and C lands from defendant Nos.1 and 2. The impugned order is a non-speaking order, and is therefore, liable to be set aside. The alleged unregistered partnership deed is improperly stamped, and therefore, cannot be looked into. He submitted that inasmuch as the alleged partnership firm, is an unregistered one, having regard to the provisions of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, respondent No.1 is not entitled to maintain the very suit itself. Inasmuch as the petitioner is neither connected with the affairs of the partnership firm nor has anything to do with the partnership firm, he is not a necessary and proper party to the suit, and therefore, he submits that the court below ought not to have impleaded the petitioner as defendant No.6 to the suit, and accordingly prayed for setting it aside.