High Court · 2025

Petrtion under Section 151 CPC praying that rn the circumstances stateci in ti,e affidavrt fiied in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all the further proceedings in O.S,No. 330 Of 2022, on the file of the principal District Judge. at Hanaumakonda. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. SHARAT CHANDRA A Counsel for the Respondents : ---- The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BI,E SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1O97 OF 2024 ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is filr:d against the order date,l 02.O2.2024 passed in I.A.No. l'-! of 2022 in O.S.No.330 of 2022 by the Principal District Judge at Hanumakorrda

2. The petitioner herein is proposed :rlaintiff No.2, respondent No.1 rs the defendant and resporrdent No.2 is plaintiff No. I in the suit. For convenience, thr-- parties herein after referre d to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of the presenr Civil Revision Petition are that piaintiff No.1 had filed a suit r iz., O.S.No.33O of 2022 beiore the Principal District Judge at Flanumakonda, for recovery of money against the defendant on the basis of four promissory notes. During the pendency of suit, I.A.No. 12 of 2022 was Iiled to implead Dr.Pingili Laxmi as plaintiff No.2 in the suit. It is stated that four promissory notes were executed by the def:ndant, out of rvhich, two promissory notes were executed ir favour of proposed plaintiff No.2. i.e., one for .:i-.ry a"' ?,-.q .,/ 2 LNA, J C-R-P.No-1097 of2024 Rs.5,00,O00/- dated 06.03.2016 and another for Rs.6,00,000/- dated lO.O7.2016 and remaining two promissory notes were executed in favour of plaintiff No. 1.

4. The plaintiff No.1 has filed counter in the said application inter alia contending that the defendant borrowed amounts from him on 05.01.2016. The four promissory notes filed in the suit by the original plaintiff No.1 are of different dates, i.e., 05.01.2016,06.03.2016, 12.09.2016 and 10.07.2016. It is further contended that it is not properly explained as to how the alleged claim of proposed plaintiff No.2 would be within Iimitation as the two promissory notes said to have been executed in favour of proposed plaintiff No.2 are dated

06.03.2O16 and 70.O7.2O16 and I.A. is hled on23.12.2021.

5. The trial Court, after considering the submissions of both parties and material available on record, uide otdet dated

02.02.2024 dismissed the said application by observing that proposed plaintiff No.2 did not explain as to how she can join as the original plaintiff No.1 in seeking her claim as her claims are not of the same date on which the original plaintiff i.e., plaintiff No.1 alleged to have lent the amounts to the defendant 3 I,NA, J C.R.P.No.l097 of 2024 and the claims of proposed plaintiff No.2 and the original plaintiff ar-e of different dates as per recorcl and further observed tlrat no reasons have been mentioned ior granting the said relief. Aggrieved by the said order, the ploposed plaintiff No.2 has preferred the present Civil Revision Pelitron.

6. l,earrLed counsel for the petitioner / piaintiff No.2 contended that the suit was filed within a pelocl of limitation and also plid Court fee for the entire suit amolurt on the basis of four prornissory notes. He further conicrlded that no prejudice ruould be caused to the defendant, if rhe petitioner is impleaded as the proposed plaintiff No.2 partl in the pending suit. Thercfore, impugned order passed by the trial Court is erroneous ar-rd the trial Court failed to prol rt: rly appreciate material placed on record and has come to erroneous conclusion .

7. Perr,;al of the record discloses that rcspondent No.2 herein filed O.S.No.330 of 2022 on the hle of the principal District Judge at Warangal for recovery of money basing on four promisson, notes dates, i.e., OS.O1.20l6, 06.O3.2OL6, l2.O9.2Of i and lO.O7.2016. The defendant after service of @ 2 4 LNA, J C.R.P.No.l097 of2024 notice entered and filed written statements, when the matter was pending for adjudication, the petitioner herein filed I.A.No. 12 of 2022 to implead her as plaintiff No.2 in the suit on the ground that though two promissory notes out of four promissory notes stands in her name, she was not included as plaintiff No.2 while filing suit due to oversight. It is relevant to note that the promissory notes are dated i.e., 05.01.2016, 06.03.2016, L2.O9.2016 and IO.O7.2016, thus all the promissory notes pertains to the year , 2076, whereas, the present application to impiead the plaintiff is hled in the year

2022. The limitation period for filing suit for recovery of money basing on the promissory note is three (O3) years. The present application fi1ed by the petitioner herein is clearly beyond the said period of three (03) years as such, if the application is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to come on record as plaintiff No.2 in the suit, it amount to revival of time barred claim.

8. In the light of the above factual background and reasons, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court and therefore, not "*ryv LNA, J C.R.P.No.1097 of 2024 inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial 5 Court and thus, the preset revision fails 9 . Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition i :; dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if arry, shall stand closed. ASSI ,1. I I //TRUE COPY' To,

1. The Principirl District Judge, at Hanumakonda 2. One CC to firi Sharat Chandra.A, Advocate (OPUC) 3. Two CD Co ries Ks/PSL ?+ SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL STflNT REGISTRAR \,i\ l---=- \ SECTION OFFICER -- __L I t \ ,4- .r. 1 "t-' tF S;- s _) 19 sEP r25 \.-..\ '' tl ..-lt HIGH COUTTT DATED:1410212025 ORDER CRP.No.10l)7 of 2024 Dismissing the C.R.P Without costs. (a 3o ts-