R REDDAIAH CHOUDARY N CHINA MANEMMA Vs. KRISHNA FINANCE CORPORATION MANAGING PARTNER VENKATADRI NAIDU R REDDAIAH CHOUDARY PATCALA CHITTOR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition No. 3363 of 1996 is filed against the order in E.A.NO. 413 of 1996 in O.S.No. 166 of 1979 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chittoor dismissing the application filed by the petitioner (a third party), refusing to implead her as a decree holder in place of B. Venkatadri Naidu, the original decree holder. The other Civil Revision Petition No. 432 of 1997 is filed against the order in E.A.No. 412/96 in O.E.P.No. 23 of 1992 in O.S.No. 166 of 1979 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chittoor for recording full satisfaction of the decretal amount due as per the decree.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that one Sri.B. Venkatadri Naidu (respondent in both these revision petitions) representing the finance company filed a suit for recovery of the loan amount lent by the company to the revision petitioner and obtained a decree. He filed E.P.No. 23/92 for execution of the same. In the said petition, the petitioner in C.R.P.No. 3863 of 1996 filed E.A.No. 413 of 1996 to implcad her as a decree holder on the ground that she became the Managing Partner of the said company and received the full decretal amount on 30-6-1996 and passed a receipt on the same day and that the earlier Managing Partner in so far as the decree was passed becomes funcus officio in view of the resolution dated 23-6-1996. While so, the Judgment Debtor i.e., the petitioner filed E.A.No. 412 of 1996 to record the full satisfaction of the decretal amount due as per the decree on the basis of the receipt said to have been passed by the petitioner in E.A.No. 413 of 1996. The respondent filed a counter denying the allegations that he ceased to be the Managing Partner of the firm. According to him, the alleged resolution dated 23-6-1996 is a fabricated and collusive one issued at the instance of the judgment debtor/petitioner in E.A.No. 412 of 1996. After considering the petition and counter the Court below dismissed the petitions on the ground that the alleged payment by the judgment debtor is not to the decree holder and the payment is to a third party.

(3.) Aggrieved by the same, the present revisions are filed as stated above.