MULAKALAVATHY Vs. SUDDALA NARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The C.R.P. is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the order made in LA. No.2583/2005 in O.S. No.987/2002 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. The respondents are defendants in the said suit. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed the said application to implead Madadi Ravinder Reddy, the attorney and agreement-holder representing the other plaintiffs as 4th plaintiff in the said suit. The learned Judge dismissed the said application on the ground that the said proposed party has no interest in the subject- matter. Hence, the C.R.P.

(2.) Sri Prabhaker Rao, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners had drawn the attention of this Court to the affidavit filed in support of the application and would maintain that the self-same attorneyagreement-holder had sworn to the affidavit and had explained the reasons why he intends to come on record. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the document in question, the power of attorney, and would maintain that in the light of the same to say that he has no interest in the subject-matter definitely cannot be sustained.

(3.) Per contra, Sri M.N. Narasimha Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondents would maintain that specific stand was taken that the proposed party is only a power of attorney - agreement holder and he has no interest in the plaint schedule property and in the light of the stand taken the dismissal of the said application is well justified.