POLURU VENKATA RATNAM Vs. MANDAVA VENKATESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is a creditor, filed I. P. No. 56 of 2006 against respondents 2 to 4 in the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada under the provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act (for short 'the Act' ). During the course of proceedings, an item of immovable property owned by respondents 2 to 4 was attached and the official receiver, 5th respondent herein was entrusted with the administration of the property. In pursuance of the orders passed by the Court, the item of property was brought to sale on 14. 02. 2008 and the 1st respondent emerged as the highest bidder for rs. 10,02,000/ -. The amount was deposited and sale deed was executed on 19. 04. 2008. The petitioner filed I. A. No. 673 of 2008 with a prayer to set aside the sale and refund the amount, on the ground that the property was already sold by respondents 2 to 4, much before the I. P. came to be filed.

(2.) THE 1st respondent filed I. A. No. 1099 of 2008 under Order 1 Rule 10 C. P. C. with a prayer to add him as a party to I. A. No. 673 of 2008. The petitioner opposed the application both as to maintainability, and on merits. Through its order, dated 29. 12. 2008, the trial Court allowed the I. A. Hence, this civil revision petition.

(3.) SRI A. P. Venugopal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent is already pursuing the remedy under Section 68 of the Act by filing i. A. No. 674 of 2008 and either by direct operation or by implication, Section 5 of the Act excludes applicability of Order I Rule 10 C. P. C. to the proceedings. He contends that having regard to the scheme of the Act, Order I Rule 10 C. P. C. has no application, particularly for the situation mentioned above. He places reliance upon the judgment of Madras High Court in M. A. Jaleel Sahib vs. N. S. Srinivasan AIR (38) 1951 MADRAS 665 and this Court in P. Gokari Sab vs. D. Sriramulu 1966 (1) An. W. R. 177.