EDULAKANTI NARSIMHA REDDY Vs. SRIRAMA WAREHOUSE HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent filed O. S. No. 778 of 1992, in the Court of IV Senior civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the deceased-1st petitioner, by name e. Narasimha Reddy, for recovery of money. It was alleged that E. Narasimha reddy offered to sell his tractor and trailer to the respondent, for a sum of Rs. 80,780/-and the respondent issued a cheque, for that amount. It is also alleged that e. Narasimha Reddy received the cheque and encashed the same, but did not deliver the tractor and trailer. A written statement was filed by E. Narasimha Reddy, denying the transaction, but admitting the receipt of the cheque and encashment thereof. During the pendency of the suit, he died. Petitioners 2 to 4 were brought on record, as legal representatives.

(2.) WITH the leave of the trial Court, petitioners 2 to 4 filed a separate written statement. They disputed even the receipt of cheque by E. Narasimha Reddy, as well as its encashment. Several new grounds, such as, that of limitation, the one about the registration of the respondent firm, territorial jurisdiction of the Court, etc, were raised. The respondent filed LA. No. 1012 of 2005, under Rule 16 of Order VI, read with rule 4 of Order 22 CPC, to strike off the defence of petitioners 2 to 4, insofar as it is at variance with the one, taken by the deceased-1st petitioner. The application was opposed by the petitioners. Through its order dated 17. 3. 2006. The trial Court allowed the I. A.

(3.) SRI Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that several grounds urged by his clients are pure questions of law, which are capable of being agitated at any stage of the suit. He contends that if petitioners 2 to 4 were totally bound by the written statement filed by the deceased-1st petitioner, the very permission accorded to them, for filing a written statement, would become nugatory. Learned Counsel submits that the trial Court had taken the hyper-technical view of the 2008 (1 )FR-F-40 matter, and the order under revision cannot be sustained.