PADALA BULLI BHAMI REDDY Vs. SURA NAGABHUSHAN RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam in I.A.No.250/2000 in O.S. No.52/1997, dated 24-11-2000, under which an application filed under Order XIV Rule 12(2) read with Section 151 C.P.C., praying the Court to frame preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the suit, was allowed, and consequently, it was declared that the suit is specifically barred and not maintainable.

(2.) The petitioner herein filed the suit for recovery of certain amount from the respondents, who were impleaded as defendants in the suit. The said suit was filed in the year 1997, which was numbered as O.S.No.52/1997 for recovery of amount of Rs.93,940/- with interest. During the pendency of the suit, it is stated that the respondents 1 and 2, who were the defendants, filed I.P.No.1/1998 and I.P.No.2/1998, seeking declaration that they have become insolvents, and the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, before whom those I.Ps were filed, allowed the said petitions declaring them as insolvents, by orders dated 27-6-2000 and 31-12-1999 respectively.

(3.) It is the case of the respondents that in the said I.Ps. the present plaintiff was impleaded as 156th respondent and the suit schedule property, being a house bearing Door No.3-3/1-21, Indiranagar Colony, Konna Veedhi, near Bhimeswaraswarny Temple of Srikakulam was shown as the schedule properties in the said I.Ps. In view of the declaration of the respondents/ defendants as insolvents, the present suit, filed for recovery of money, cannot be proceeded with; therefore, I.A,No.250/2000 was filed seeking to declare the maintainability of the suit as a preliminary issue. The said application was contested by the petitioner/plaintiff, contending that the suit was filed much before the filing of the insolvency petitions and in fact, the plaintiff has obtained temporary injunction against the above referred schedule property. In view of the fact that the present suit was filed long before filing of the insolvency petitions, as well as the declaratory orders, the present suit is not affected or barred by any of the specific provisions, therefore, sought to dismiss the application.