AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The order of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam issued in IANo.135 of 1998 in OS No.122 of 1996 dated 13-10-1998 is impugned in this revision.
From the above order it is seen that one V. Sarveswararao claiming to be the Managing Partner of the plaintiff firm i.e., Ajantha Real Estate, filed IA No.135 of 1998 seeking amendment of the plaint schedule and after giving an opportunity to the appellant herein, that application was allowed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge by orders dated 13-10-1998.
Heard both the learned Counsels.
The sole ground on which this revision petition is filed is that V. Sarveswararao is a stranger to the suit and as such the application seeking amendment of the plaint schedule at his instance cannot be maintained in law. The learned Counsel for the respondent produced the partnership deed dated 25-7-1996 and as per the rest of the terms of the deed V. Sarveswararao is one of the partners of the firm. The case of the petitioner is that had V. Sarveswararao is a partner prior to the filing of the suit, he would have also joined as a plaintiff in the suit and the present agreement produced in the Court is a fabricated one and antedated. I cannot agree with the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners for the simple reason that even a friend of the plaintiff can file an application seeking amendment of the plaint or other things as long as the plaintiff would not object for the said course. Here, in this case, the plaintiffs never raised any objection with regard to the competency of Sarveswararao in filing the application. As far as the Court and the defendants are concerned, it is a suit filed by the firm but not by the individuals. Hence 1 do not find any substance in any of the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners.
The next contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that without obtaining prior permission of the Court V. Sarveswararao filed this application. As I have already held that even a friend of the plaintiff can maintain the application, the question of seeking any prior permission from the Presiding Officer docs not arise. Accordingly this contention is also rejected. About the fabrication of the document if the petitioners arc so advised, they can get an issue framed in the suit before it goes for trial and get the dispute adjudicated.
The revision petition is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances no order as to costs.