The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records and set aside the impugned order Dated 28/11/2022 on an application under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w sec 151 of the civil procedure code, 1908 in a suit passed by the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge and JMFC. The Court observed that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners/plaintiffs and no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order which is neither perverse nor suffers from any material irregularity.
Brief Facts:
The suit is one for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Respondent No.4 filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC to come on record as additional defendant No.4 alleging that the suit schedule property originally belonged to Basaveshwara Temple and the same was gifted to the temple by one Smt. Basamma. The Petitioner’s father was working as Archaka of temple and on his death, the proposed defendant No.4 is working as Archaka and performing pooja in the said temple. Therefore, it was stated that respondent No.4 has an interest in the suit schedule property. The trial Court, taking note of the same allowed the application and permitted respondent No.4 to come on record as additional defendant No.4. Hence, the present petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that defendant No.4 has no manner of right, title, or interest over the suit schedule property since he is Archaka of the temple and he cannot have any right in respect of the suit schedule property. He argued that when the petitioners/plaintiffs are seeking a declaration against governmental authorities, defendant No.4 who claims to be Archaka of the temple in question would not be a necessary or proper party to the suit. He submitted that the trial Court committed an error in allowing an impleading application and permitting respondent No.4 to come on record.
The Court noted that Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC permits the Court to add parties or strike out the parties at any stage of the proceedings. The Court could add parties if it is of the opinion that without the presence of said person, the Court would not be in a position to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.
The Court observed that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners/plaintiffs and no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order which is neither perverse nor suffers from any material irregularity. However, the Court said that a person, as a matter of right, cannot claim impleadment. Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC vests discretionary power with the Court either to strike out or add parties.
The Court remarked that the plaintiff in a suit, being dominus litis, may choose persons against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief. Though respondent No.4 is not a necessary party, would be a proper party to the proceedings, when it is alleged that suit schedule property stands in the name of the temple. With the assistance or presence of defendant No.4, the Court would be in a position to decide the lis between the parties in a proper manner.
The decision of the Court:
The Karnataka High Court, dismissing the petition, held that the trial Court rightly allowed the application and permitted respondent No.4 to come on record.
Case Title: L. S. Harish & Ors. v Chief Secretary & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice S. G. Pandit
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 8276 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Milash Arrol Noronha
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Boppanna B.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
