IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1177 OF 2010 Between:- Café Sai Krupa, Rep. by its Sole Proprietor D.Pandu, Hyderabad. …Petitioner A n d T.S.P.Sridhar and two others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1177 OF 2010 ORDER: The civil revision petition is directed against order dated 03-12-2009 in I.A.No.804 of 2009 in O.S.No.1994 of 2006, on the file of II-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents. Perused the records. 3. The first respondent herein filed the suit against respondents 2 and 3 for eviction. Respondents 1 and 2 are brothers. According to the first respondent-plaintiff, the second respondent-D-1 is the tenant in respect of the schedule premises and he has inducted the third respondent-D-2 into the premises illegally. Hence, he filed the suit for eviction against both D-1 and D-2. The defendants filed written statement and contested the suit. The trial of the suit is stated to be in progress. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.804 of 2009 under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking to come on record. The first respondent–plaintiff opposed the same on the ground that the petitioner is stated to be a proprietorship concern of which D-2 is the proprietor and D-2 being already a party to the suit, the petitioner is neither proper nor necessary party. By the impugned order, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present civil revision petition. 4. Admittedly, even according to the petitioner, D-2 is the sole proprietor of the petitioner-café Sai Krupa. It cannot be disputed that there cannot be any separate legal existence of proprietorship concern apart from the proprietor. When the proprietor of the petitioner-café is already impleaded as a party defendant, he represents the petitioner-café in all respects and the petitioner, which has no separate legal existence, need not be impleaded as a party to the suit. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner filed R.C.No.11 of 2006 before the Rent Controller, Ranga Reddy District against the first respondent-plaintiff seeking permission to deposit the rent into the Court. Even if that be so, the petitioner would not acquire any separate legal status and when the second defendant, who is none else than the sole proprietor of the petitioner is already on record, there is no need to implead the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on a decision in PAYAPPAR SREE DHARMASASTHA TEMPLE A. COM. v. A.K.JOSSEPH AND OTHERS[1] wherein the Apex Court held that when a proper and necessary party is not impleaded, the judgment is not binding on such party. The principles laid down in the above decision cannot be disputed. In the above matter, the suit was filed only against the State Government, though the Board claimed to be the owner of the suit property and since the Board was not impleaded as a party to the suit and decree was obtained only against State Government it was held that the decree at the most would be binding against the State, but not against the Board. The State and the Board are two distinct and separate legal entities and, therefore, the decree obtained against the State Government was held to be not binding on the State. The decision cited has no application to the facts of the present case for the simple reason that the petitioner is only a proprietorship concern, which has no separate legal existence and the petitioner is duly represented by its sole proprietor who is already impleaded as second defendant in the suit. It is stated that the second defendant had also given evidence in the suit. 7. Under those circumstances, the impugned order, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, seeking to come on record, is held not liable to be interfered with as the petitioner is neither necessary nor proper party to the suit in view of the sole proprietor of the petitioner having already been impleaded as second defendant in the suit. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Interim stay stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 18th February, 2011 Ksm/Lrkm [1] 2009(8) SCJ 971