VAMARAJU CHAKRAPANI Vs. SIVALENKA RADHAKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisions are filed by the same petitioner and against, the same respondents. The subject matter is identical. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. Sivalenka Radhakrishna and the 2nd respondent herein, filed O.S.Nos.365 of 1990 and 66 of 1999, in the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, against the petitioner herein and three others, in relation to the affairs and administration of M/s.Nageswara Rao Estates limited. Sivalerika Radhakrishna died. His wife and son, sought to come on record, as legal representatives. They filed I.A.Nos.1153 and 1154 of 2005, in the two suits referred to above, under Order 22 Rule 3, read with Section 151 C.P.C. and Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice. The applications were opposed by the petitioner and other defendants in the suit, by stating that the relief claimed by the deceased- 1st plaintiff was personal to him, and his legal representatives cannot be permitted to come on record. Through different, but identical orders, dated 10.3.2006, the trial court allowed the applications. Hence, these two Revisions.

(2.) Sri S.V.Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the relief claimed in the suits was a declaration, to the effect that the deceased-1st plaintiff and the 2nd plaintiff continue to be the directors of the company and that the petitioner, his wife and brother, who too were made parties to the suit, do not have any subsisting interest in the said company. He contends that the relief is personal to the plaintiffs, and on the death of the 1st plaintiff, necessary steps are required to be taken, in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act. Learned counsel points out that the trial court was not justified in allowing the applications filed before it. Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, on the other hand, submits that the deceased-1st plaintiff was representing the interests of the joint family in the company, and that his clients are intending to come on record, as legal representatives.

(3.) For one reason or the other, a suit filed in the year 1990 remained undisposed. The passage of time would bring about its own complications in the adjudicatory process, and the present proceedings have only demonstrated it. It is hoped that, at least, now the parties and the trial court would realize the necessity to bestow the required attention for the disposal of the suits. The 1st plaintiff in both the suits died on 4.8.2005. His legal representatives filed applications, seeking permission to come on record as plaintiffs 3 and 4, in both the suits. The objection raised by the petitioner herein that the relief claimed in the suit was personal to the deceased-1sl plaintiff, did not weigh with the trial court.