Judgment · High Court · 2010
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 08 Jul 2010
- Bench
- GODA RAGHURAM
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
Judgment
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.1381 OF 2007 ORAL ORDER This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 06-03-2007 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem rejecting I.A.No.210 of 2007. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs, who sought declaration of their title and possession in respect of the suit schedule property, against the respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein. The defendants in the written statement pleaded that the proper and necessary parties were not impleaded. In I.A.No.177 of 2006, the defendants sought framing of an additional issue with regard to the failure of the plaintiffs in impleading the proper and necessary parties. The evidence on either side was closed and when the suit was listed for arguments, the plaintiffs filed the application I.A.210 of 2007 seeking to implead the respondent Nos.8 to 17 herein as defendants in the suit, as legal representatives of one Ammanna. The court below rejected the application holding that the application was filed long after the written statement was filed and long after the defendants filed I.A.No.177 of 2006, pursuant to which, an additional issue as to the maintainability of the suit for non-joinder or necessary parties was also framed and after the evidence was concluded. This court discerns no error in the application of law or in the discretion exercised by the court below, warranting revisional interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. This Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 8th JULY 2010 TSNR ________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 08 Jul 2010. The bench was GODA RAGHURAM.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.