THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1733 and 1734 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: The respondents filed O.S.No.27 of 2008 in the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District against the petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. The amount is said to have been given as a consideration to the petitioner to vacate the premises owned by respondent No.1, in which he is residing as a tenant. It was further alleged that on receipt of the amount, the petitioner was under obligation to withdraw O.S.No.768 of 2004 filed by him for perpetual injunction in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru against respondent No.1. The petitioner opposed the suit by filing a written statement. The trial of the suit is yet to commence. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2010 under Order VI Rule 7 C.P.C. with a prayer to permit him to amend the written statement by incorporating certain pleas, touching upon the validity of the alleged receipt for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and as regards the absence of consideration etc. He has also filed I.A.No.50 of 2010 under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. with a prayer to strike off the name of respondent No.2 from the array of the parties. According to him, there is no privity of contract between himself and respondent No.2 and the latter deserves to be deleted from the array of the parties. Through separate orders, dated 22.03.2010, the trial Court dismissed the applications. Hence, these two revisions. Heard Sri J.Ugra Narasimha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.V.Sesha Sai, learned counsel for the respondents. In the written statement filed in the suit, it is categorically stated that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have jointly paid the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the petitioner. Whether or not the said allegation is correct is a matter, which needs to be decided after the trial of the suit. The suit filed by the respondents is the one for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. The background in which the amount is said to have been paid and the necessity for recovery of the same has arisen are pleaded in the plaint. On his part, the petitioner filed a detailed written statement denying the allegations from time to time. It was also alleged that the receipt pleaded upon by the respondents is fabricated. The petitioner wants to amend his written statement by incorporating three pleas, namely (a) the admissibility of the receipt on account of the absence of adhesive stamps, (b) denial of receipt of any amount from respondent No.1 and (c) the irrelevance of respondent No.2 in the suit. A perusal of the written statement discloses that in one way or the other, these aspects have been pleaded. The trial Court has made a clear observation to the effect that the question as to whether the suit document, dated 06.07.2007, is admissible for want of adhesive stamp can be considered as and when the document is sought to be marked. The second contention is as to non-receipt of the amount. That indeed is the very bone of contention and it is amply stated in the written statement. So far as the third one is concerned, it is covered by the other application, being I.A. No.50 of 2010. Hence, the dismissal of I.A.No.1 of 2010 cannot be found fault with, particularly when the interest of the petitioner is already protected. I.A.No.50 of 2010 is for deletion of respondent No.2 from the array of the parties. In the plaint, it has been categorically mentioned that respondent No.2 arranged for payment of the amount and the payment was made jointly by himself and respondent No.1. Though respondent No.1 alone is the landlady to the petitioner, the alleged payment is not independent of the said relationship. In that view of the matter, the prayer for deletion of respondent No.2 from the array of the parties cannot be accepted. The civil revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 14.07.2010. kdl