MADA NAGESHWARARAO Vs. POTTA BHARATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petition was admitted on 15. 2. 2008 and CRP MP no. 456/2008 on 15. 2. 2008, this Court made the following Order:

(2.) SINCE the interim order was not granted by this Court and in view of the urgency pleaded by the parties for the disposal of the civil revision petition, on hearing the Counsel on record, the civil revision petition is being disposed of finally.

(3.) SRI Subramanya Narasu, the learned Counsel representing revision petitioner had taken this Court through the respective stands taken by the parties and would maintain that the learned I- Additional district Judge, Vizianagaram, should have allowed the application to implead the 2nd respondent as 2nd defendant in the suit in view of the 1st issue framed in the suit namely "whether the plaintiff has executed an agreement dated 9. 1. 2000 in favour of the defendant's brother Mada suryanarayana alias Suresh authorizing him to manage the suit theatre". The learned Counsel also would maintain that in view of the specific contention of the petitioner that he paid the rent to the said suryanarayana who was appointed as agent of the 1st respondent relating to the suit theatre by the 1st respondent-plaintiff, the application for addition of party should have been ordered instead of dismissing the same. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the suit O. S. No. 9/2003 on the file of principal Junior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram filed by the 2nd respondent challenging the cancellation of agreement, under which he was appointed as Manager by the 1st respondent-plaintiff to manage the suit theatre was decreed and he has been continuing to be in management of suit theatre. The learned Counsel also would submit that the suit filed by the 1st respondent- plaintiff against the petitioner is for recovery of possession and arrears of rent and in view of the specific defence taken by the petitioner that he has been paying rents to the 2nd respondent regularly and there are no arrears, the presence of 2nd respondent is necessary for proper and effective adjudication of all the disputes involved in the suit. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the other specific grounds raised like default in payment of rent, these aspects also cannot be decided in the absence of the proposed party and hence, the dismissal of the application is totally unjustified. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on certain decisions.