ATMURI MAHALAKSHMI Vs. JAGADEESH TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are third parties filed a petition before the lower Court under Order 1 Rule 10 and Section 151 C.P.C. to implead them as plaintiffs 2 to 5 in the suit. The respondents herein are the defendants in the suit. The learned District Munsif declined to grant permission to the petitioners to come on record on the ground that they have no locus standi to file the petition. Aggrieved against the said older of the learned District Munsif, the petitioners-third parties have filed the present revision petition.

(2.) The suit was filed for recovery of certain amount on the basis of Khata by Ms/. Pattabhi Enterprises against the respondents {herein. The petitioners' case is that they are blood relations, 1st petitioner being the wife and petitioners 2 to 4 being the sons of A. Pattabhirama Rao who filed the suit as Managing Partner of Pattabhi Enterprises, that they are also the partners of the said firm along with Pattabhirama Rao and therefore they are also entitled to the amount. The petition was resisted by the defendents on the ground that the firm was not registered by the date of filing of the suit and its subsequent registration will not cure the defect and therefore, the suit itself is not maintainable.

(3.) Admittedly the suit was filed by the Firm which was not registered at the time of filing the suit. But during the pendency of the suit, the firm was registered. The Court below considered the point and found that subsequent registration will not enure to the benefit of the third parties to contend that they are also entitled to come on record and the-suit can be proceeded with, without their being impleaded as plaintiffs.