IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3180 OF 2010 Between: Kotagiri Sudershan and another .....PETITIONERS AND Chintakunta Gangaram and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3180 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 28.10.2009, in I.A.No.527 of 2005 in O.S.No.6 of 2004, on the file of II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial, whereunder and whereby, the petition, under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “C.P.C.”), filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs to add the proposed parties as plaintiff No.3 and defendant Nos.3 and 4 in the Original Suit, was dismissed on the ground that the petition was filed at a belated stage. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. In spite of service of notice, none appears for the respondents. 3. Petitioners herein are plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and respondents herein are defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the Original Suit. 4. The primary object of enacting Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. is to bring before the court, at one and the same time, all the persons interested in the dispute so that all the controversies in the suit may be finally determined once and for all in the presence of all the parties without delay, inconvenience and expenses of several actions, trials and inconclusive adjudication. 5. A specific pleading has been taken in the plaint about the supply of Turmeric by the petitioners/plaintiffs company i.e., M/s. Vijaya Durga Traders, Metpalli to the respondents/defendants companies M/s. Satya Trading Company General Merchants, Commission Agent, Shraddanand Gunj, Nizamabad and M/s. Srinivasa Grains and Commission Agents, Metpalli. The Proprietor of M/s. Vijaya Durga Traders was already brought on record as plaintiff No.2. Similarly, the Managing Partner of M/s. Satya Trading Company General Merchants and the Commission Agent of M/s. Srinivasa Grains and Commission Agents were also on record as defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the Original Suit itself. In view of the pleadings, the legal entities have to be brought on record instead of Commission Agent or Managing Partner or Proprietor of the firms concerned. Therefore, the trial Court ought to have allowed the petition filed by the petitioners. For the purpose of resolving the dispute in the suit and for proper adjudication of the case, the proposed legal entities have to be brought on record. Hence, the petition has to be allowed. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 28.10.2009, in I.A.No.527 of 2005 in O.S.No.6 of 2004, on the file of II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial and consequently, the I.A. stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J September 27, 2010 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3180 OF 2010 September 27, 2010