IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1174 of 2020 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Aggrieved by the Order dated 17-03-2020 passed I.A No. 411 of 2018 in O.S No. 193 of 2015 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Guntur, Guntur District. Between: M/s. Gogineni Enterprises, Rep.by its Partner, Bannaravuri Narayana Rao, S/o.Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged about 61 years, R/o. Business Partner of M/s.Gogineni Enterprises, D.No.5-4-104/3, M.G.Road, Ranigunj, Secunderabad. ...PETITIONER/ PETITIONER AND 1. Kantamaneni Bhanumathi, W/o.Nayudamma, Hindu, aged about 59 years. Housewife, R/o.D.No.4-20-50, Siddardha Nagar, Guntur. 2. Mulpuru (Chintamaneni) Lakshmi Kumari, W/o.Vishnu Prasad, Hindu, aged about 64 years. Retired Lecturer, R/o.Flat No.806, My Home Vayu, Madapur, Hyderabad, Telangana State. ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be 0-- pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S No. 193 of 2015 on the file of II Additional District Judge at Guntur. ► Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SATYANARAYANA NIMMALA Counsel for Respondent No.1 : NONE APPEARED Counsel for Respondent No.2 : SRI Y RAMA SESHAIAH The Court made the following ORDER : APHC010315892020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1174/2020 Between: ...PETITIONER M/s. Gogineni Enterprises AND Kantamaneni 'Bhanumathi and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SATYANARAYANA NIMMALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. YADALAPALLI N RAMA SESHAIAH 2. following: made the Court The HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1174 of 2020 ORDER:- This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the order dated 17.03.2020 in I.A.No.411 of 2018 in O.S.No.193 of 2015 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Guntur. Petitioner is third party to suit. Suit O.S.No.193 of 2015 was filed for partition of suit schedule property between respondent Nos.1 and 2 with regard to an extent of Ac.4.25 cents and Ac.3.56 cents in Door No.llO/Q of Nadimpalem Village, Gunturu District. As per the plaint, the suit schedule property was jointly purchased by the respondents under a registered sale deed dated 17.01.1996 vide document 2. No.21/1996 SRO, Prathipadu. While the suit was pending. Petitioner filed I.A.No.411 of 2018 seeking to implead itself as 2^^ defendant in the suit. In the application filed by the Petitioner, it was contended that the Petitioner Firm was constituted with nine members and a Partnership deed dated 21.06.1985 was executed for doing business in Industrial gases. Electrodes etc. It was further 3. 2 >» pleaded that the Firm used to purchase properties and register documents in the name of individual partners. 4. It was also pleaded that the suit schedule property was purchased in the name of wife of another partner by name Vishnu Prasad and the Firm had contradicted to the sale transaction. It was further pleaded that the Firm is in possession of the schedule property. The Plaintiff-1 respondent herein subsequently retired from Partnership by settling all the accounts and the remaining partners signed on the fresh partnership deed dated 01.04.2005. On the same day, the Plaintiff said to have executed a document by name Oppudalapatram” stating that she has relinquished her half share in the suit schedule property and agreed to execute registered document regarding her share in the suit in favour of the Petitioner-Firm. The application, on contest, was dismissed by the trial Court relying on the provisions of the Binami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 1988. Hence, the present revision petition is filed. Heard Sri Satynarayana Nimmala, learned counsel for 5. the Petitioner and Sri Y.Rama Seshaiah, learned counsel for the Respondents. 3 r». 6. The plea of the Petitioner that the consideration for the sale deed was contributed by the partnership firm and that there was an agreement executed by the Plaintiff/1 Respondent in favour of the partnership firm cannot be a cause for them to implead in the present suit. The Petitioner would have to file an independent suit for enforcement of the “Oppudalapatram” dated 01.04.2005 and the same cannot be sought to be established by impleading the Petitioner as party Defendant in the suit. St 7. Therefore, leaving it open to the Petitioner to file independent suit to establish their right over the schedule property and for enforcement of the “Oppudalapatram" dated 01.04.2005 said to have been executed by the Plaintiff/1 an Respondent, the civil revision petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- K.SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// OFFICER S To The II Additional District Judge, Guntur, Guntur District. 1. 2. One CC to Sri Satyanarayana Nimmala, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Y Rama Seshaiah, Advocate [OPUC] N 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 5. Three CD Copies TK TAC HIGH COURT DATED:24/01/2025 ^OfANDHSJ^ 0 5 JUN 20?5 m ar ^ . Curreni ieciion ^fSPATCV'^^'" ORDER CRP.No.1174 of 2020 DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION