Sridhar P vs Sri. Shivashankaran
2022 Latest Caselaw 9497 Kant

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 9497 Kant
Judgement Date : 23 June, 2022

Karnataka High Court

Sridhar P vs Sri. Shivashankaran on 23 June, 2022

Bench: Ashok S.Kinagi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2022

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

     WRIT PETITION NO.19128 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRIDHAR P.
S/O PONNUSWAMY,
R/AT NO.61, 7TH CROSS, 10TH MAIN,
NANDANAM COLONY, HORAMAVU,
BANGALORE-560 043.
                                        ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. YASHAS K., FOR SRI. NIKHILESH RAO M., ADV.)

AND

1.     SRI. SHIVASHANKARAN
       AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
       R/AT NO.03, FRUIT STREET,
       BANGALORE-560 036.

2.     SMT.UDAYASHANKARI
       W/O SHIVASHANKARAN,
       AGED MAJOR,
       R/AT NO.03, FRUIT STREET,
       BANGALORE-560036.
                                      ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. P VENKATARAMANA, ADV.)
                                 2




     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER (ANNEXURE-A) DATED
21.07.2017 PASSED IN OS 1567/2013 BY THE HON'BLE
COURT OF THE XX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE AT BENGALURU WHEREBY IA NO.7 FOR
IMPLEADING    THE   PROPOSED     DEFENDANT   NO.2/
RESPONDENT NO.2 CAME TO BE REJECTED; AND ETC.

    THIS   WRIT    PETITION COMING   ON    FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                            ORDER

The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated

21.07.2017, passed on I.A.No.7 in O.S.No.1567/2013

by the XX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore

has filed this writ petition.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition

are as under:

Initially petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.

1567/2013 against respondent No.1 for the relief of

permanent injunction. Respondent No.1 appeared

and filed written statement contending that

respondent No.1 is not the owner of the suit schedule

property. It is contended that respondent No.2 is the

owner of the land with building bearing No.4. On the

basis of the written statement filed by respondent

No.1, petitioner filed an application to implead

respondent No.2 as defendant No.2 and also filed an

application for amendment of plaint in I.A.No.6. The

said applications were opposed by respondent No.2 by

filing objections. The Trial Court after hearing the

parties, rejected the applications. The petitioner

aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.7, has filed

this writ petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and

learned counsel for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.7 for

impleading respondent No.2 as defendant No.2 and

also filed an application for amendment of plaint in

I.A.No.6. The Trial Court rejected I.A.No.6. Petitioner

aggrieved by the order of rejection of I.A.No.6, filed a

writ petition in W.P.No.740/2018. The said writ

petition came to be allowed vide order dated

08.02.2018. He further submits that now the suit is

one for declaration and injunction. He submits that

the Trial Court has rejected the application for

impleading only on the ground that suit is one for

permanent injunction and the proposed applicant is

neither necessary nor proper party to the suit. Hence

he submits that in view of the subsequent

development, I.A.No.7 requires reconsideration by the

Trial Court. Hence on these grounds, he prays to

allow the writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the

respondents submits that the vendor of petitioner filed

a suit against respondent No.2 in O.S.No.25884/2007

and the said suit came to be dismissed and the said

judgment is binding on the petitioner. He submitted

that the Trial Court was justified in passing the

impugned order. Hence he prays to dismiss the writ

petition.

6. Perused the records and considered the

submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner initially

filed a suit for permanent injunction. The petitioner

filed an application in I.A.No.7 for impleading

respondent No.2 as defendant No.2 and also filed an

application in I.A.No.6 for amendment of plaint. The

Trial Court rejected both the applications vide

separate orders dated 21.07.2017. The petitioner

aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.6, preferred

a writ petition in W.P.No.740/2018. This Court vide

order dated 08.02.2018, allowed the writ petition and

set aside the order passed by the Trial Court on

I.A.No.6 and allowed the application filed by the

petitioner for amendment of the plaint. The petitioner

carried out amendment. In view of disposal of

W.P.No.740/2018, the suit for permanent injunction is

converted into a suit for declaration. This Court,

taking into consideration the subsequent event,

passed the order in the aforesaid writ petition.

I.A.No.7 requires to be re-considered by the Trial

Court.

8. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to

pass the following:

ORDER

The writ petition is allowed.

           The        impugned         order    dated
     21.07.2017,       passed     on     I.A.No.7    in

O.S.No.1567/2013, is hereby quashed and set aside.

Trial Court is directed to re-consider I.A.No.7 afresh and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law without being influenced by observation made in the impugned order.