THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1458 OF 2010 DATED:30.03.2011 Between: G.Prabhakara Rao. .... PETITIONER And Peddi Sudershan & 6 others. .... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 26.02.2010, in I.A.No.370 of 2009 in O.S.No.458 of 2003 on the file learned XIII Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Secunderabad, wherein the said application filed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleadment of the petitioner and the respondents 5 to 7, was allowed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondents and no representation is made on 21.03.2011, 28.03.2011 and also today though the matter is posted under the caption ‘for orders’. Perused the record. 3. Respondents 1 to 3 herein filed the suit against the 4th respondent herein for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule premises and also for recovery of arrears of rent for the period from September, 2000 to August, 2003 in a sum of Rs.1,65,600/-. According to the plaintiff, they are the owners of the plaint schedule premises and the same was leased out to the 4th respondent herein-1st defendant company, vide lease agreement, dated 02.09.2000, on a monthly rent of Rs.4600/-. Plaintiff alleges that initially 1st defendant company has paid the rents upto September, 1997 and subsequently committed default. In the plaint, it is stated that the rents from October, 1997 are due. The claim for a period of 71 months, a sum of Rs.3,26,600/- for the period from October, 1997 to August, 2003 was given up as the same is barred by limitation and the suit claim is restricted only for a period of 36 months prior to filing of the suit i.e. from September, 2000 to August, 2003. Plaintiff filed I.A.No.370 of 2009 under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment of the Directors of the company i.e. petitioner-3rd respondent and the respondents 4 to 7 herein on the ground that being the Directors of the company they are also proper and necessary parties. Petitioner herein filed a counter opposing the said application on the ground that he has already resigned as the Director of the company on 01.04.2000 and the same was intimated to the Registrar of Companies by the company in the form prescribed. Necessary fee was also paid in that regard and the same was acknowledged by the Registrar of Companies also. Inasmuch as the claim for arrears of rent is for a period of three years from September, 2000, which is much subsequent to resignation of the petitioner as a Director of the defendant company, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner-3rd respondent for any claim in respect of the arrears of rent inasmuch as the petitioner is shown to have resigned as a Director of the company with effect from 01.04.2000 and therefore ceased to have any concern in the affairs of the company and its day to day business from 01.04.2000. Neither he is proper nor necessary party to the suit. His impleadment as defendant is therefore unwarranted. In the circumstances, the impugned order is held unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. 4. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 30th March, 2011. Tsy