Smt. B. Roopa @ B. Yeshoda vs Smt. C. Padma
2022 Latest Caselaw 5756 Kant

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                         BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

      WRIT PETITION NO.13644 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN

SMT. B ROOPA @ B YESHODA
D/O LATE BASAVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT NO.13, KATHA NO.224/13
KAMMAGONDAHALLI
YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU-560 015
                                            ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAJESHWAR P N, ADVOCATE)

AND

      1. SMT. C PADMA
         W/O MUNIRAJA REDDY
         AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
         R/AT DODDANAGAMANGALA VILLAGE
         BEGUR HOBLI
         ELECTRONIC CITY POST
         BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
         BENGALURU-560 100.

      2. SMT. GOWRAMMA
         W/O CHANDRU
         AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
         R/AT DODDANAGAMANGALA VILLAGE
         BEGUR HOBLI
                                   2




         ELECTRONIC CITY POST
         BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
         BENGALURU-560 100.
                                                 ....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 06TH OCTOBER, 2018 ON IA.NO.4 IN ORIGINAL SUIT
NO.978 OF 2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE,   BENGALURU     RURAL     DISTRICT,   BENGALURU
(ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.,

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

                             ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed by the impleading applicant in

Original Suit No.978 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Senior

Civil Judge Bangalore Rural District, Bengaluru dismissing IA.4

file by the applicant/petitioner herein.

2. Relevant facts for adjudication of this Writ Petition are

that, the petitioner and the respondent No.2 herein have entered

into an agreement of sale dated 15th May, 2012, agreeing to sell

the suit schedule property. It is pleaded in the Writ Petition that

there was dispute between the petitioner and the respondent

No.2 and as such the petitioner herein has field Original Suit No.

No.1047 of 2016 before the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore

Rural District, seeking relief of specific performance against

respondent No.2 and the trial Court, by judgment and decree

dated 04th March, 2017, decreed the suit, directing the

defendant (respondent No.2 herein) to execute registered sale

deed in favour of the plaintiff (petitioner herein) in respect of the

suit schedule property. Thereafter, the petitioner herein has

filed Execution Petition No.14 of 2017 before the trial Court and

came to know that the respondent No.1 herein has filed Original

Suit No. No.978 of 2013 against the respondent No.2 herein,

seeking relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated

21st August, 2012. Hence, the petitioner has filed application in

IA.4 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure to

implead as defendant in the suit. The said application was

resisted buy the plaintiff and the trial Court after considering the

material on record, by impugned order dated 06th October, 2018

dismissed the application. Being aggrieved by the same,

impleading applicant as approached this court in this Writ

Petition.

3. Heard Sri P. N. Rajeshwar, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri R. Umesh, respondent for No.2

4. Sri P N Rajesh, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner contended that though the petitioner herein is not a

party to the sale agreement dated 21st August, 2012 between

the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.2, however, the

petitioner herein is a decree older in Original Suit No.1047 of

2016 and therefore, any judgment or decree passed by the trial

Court in Original Suit No.978 of 2013 is having direct bearing on

the suit schedule property and therefore, he contended that the

trial Court has committed error in disallowing the IA4.

5. Per contra. R. Umesh, sought to justify the impugned

order passed by the trial Court.

6. In the light of the submission made by the learned

counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully considered the

finding recorded by the trial Court as well as perused the writ

papers. Perusal of the Writ Petition papers would indicate that

petitioner herein has filed Original Suit No.1047 of 2016 on the

file of the trial Court seeking relief of specific performance based

on the agreement dated 15th May, 2012. It is also not in dispute

that the said suit came to be decreed in favour of the petitioners

herein by judgment and decree dated 04th March, 2017. On the

other hand, OS No.978 of 2013 is filed by the respondent No.1

herein against the respondent No.2, seeking relief of specific

performance of agreement dated 21st August, 2012 and

therefore, as on today, the petitioner/Decree holder in execution

No.14 of 2017 is having right, title and interest over the suit

schedule property unless the judgment and decree dated 04th

March, 2017 passed in Original Suit No.1047 of 2016 is set aside

by the Appellate Court. In that view of the matter, I am of the

view that the trial Court, without considering the said aspect,

has arrived at a conclusion that the impleading

applicant/petitioner herein is not a party to the sale agreement

dated 21st August, 2012 and the said finding recorded by the

trial Court cannot be accepted. Accordingly, I pass the following

order:

ORDER

1. Writ Petition is allowed;

2. Order dated 06th October, 2018 on IA.4 in

Original Suit No.978 of 2013 is set aside. IA.4

filed by the petitioner herein under Order I

Rule 10(2) read with section 151 Code of Civil

Procedure, is allowed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

lnn