ADDANKI CHINA RANGANAYAKULU Vs. PASALA PULLAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On February 24, 1987, the revision petitioner was irnpleaded suo motu by the trial court as a respondent in O.S. No. 133 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Kanigiri, filed by the first respondent against the second respondent for permanent injunction restraining it from appointing any dealer of kerosene and light diesel oil at Kanigiri. In the said suit the first respondent filed an application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The learned trial Judge by the above said order directed that the revision petitioner be impleaded as a respondent. Accordingly he was impleaded without notice to him. After receiving the summons in the suit he learnt of impleading him as a respondent so he filed this revision petition against the said order dated February 24, 1987.

(2.) As the revision petition was filed after the expiry of period of limitation prescribed in Article 131 of the Limitation Act and was not accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the same, the registry returned the papers for presenting along with such an application. They were represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner endorsing that as the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings in which the order under revision was passed, the limitation runs from the date of his knowledge of the order in question and from that date the Civil Revision Petition is in time. As the registry was not satisfied with the explanation, the matter is placed before the Court for orders.

(3.) At my request Sri Poornaiah, advocate, assisted the Court as amicus curiae.