THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2367 of 2014 DATED: 22.08.2014 Between:
Smt. Cheruvpally Venkata Sujatha and LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED, Rep. by its Cluster Accounts and Admn. Manager, and others.
.. Petitioner .. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. S. Lakshma Reddy Counsel for respondent No.14: Mr. S.V.S.S. Siva Ram For Mr. Challa Gunaranjan This Court made the following:
ORDER:
This civil revision petition arises out of order dated 07.04.2014 in I.A.No.200 of 2011 in O.S.No.463 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accident Tribunal-cum-XI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District.
The brief facts leading to the filing of this revision petition are that the petitioner has filed the above-mentioned suit against respondents 1 to 13 for recovery of Rs.30,01,000/- along with interest and damages against the said respondents jointly and severally, besides a decree for payment of interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of suit till realization of the suit amount. The petitioner pleaded that in pursuance of the contract entered into by respondent No.1 with respondent No.14, namely; M/s. Visakha Cement Limited, now known as Indian Cements Limited, for supply of cement by the latter, respondent No.14 has entrusted transportation of cement to the petitioner and that she has accordingly transported the cement. It is the further case of the petitioner that on the complaint given by respondent No.1 that the cement allegedly dispatched by respondent No.14 has not reached it, the latter has debited the value of 21 loads of cement to her account. The petitioner, therefore, sought for impleadment of respondent No.14 as defendant No.14. The lower Court has dismissed the said application by the order under revision.
I have heard Mr. S. Lakshma Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, learned counsel representing respondent No.14-proposed defendant No.14.
The only ground on which respondent No.14 is proposed to be impleaded is that respondent No.1 has denied receipt of 21 loads of cement. In my opinion, mere impleadment of respondent No.14 without claiming appropriate relief against it will not serve any purpose for the petitioner. If the petitioner wants to establish her claim that she has transported 21 loads of cement and delivered the same to respondent No.1, she has two options, namely; 1) to examine the representative of respondent No.14 as a witness or 2) to seek amendment of the plaint by seeking relief against respondent No.14- proposed defendant No.14 also jointly and severally along with other defendants and along with it, to file an application for impleadment of respondent No.14.
Subject to the liberty given to the petitioner as above, the civil revision petition is disposed of.
As a sequel to the disposal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.3299 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 22nd August, 2014 IBL