M.R Industries vs Ask Resources India Private ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 12017 Kant

                           1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                        BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

       WRIT PETITION NO.15856/2022(GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1.     M.R. INDUSTRIES,
       THE REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
       HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
       A.G.ROAD, CHALLAKERE - 577 522,
       CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
       BY MANAGING PARTNER R.MADHU,
       S/O LATE B.V.RAMADAS,
       AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

2.    Y.A. TRADERS,
      MANDY MERCHANTS & COMMISSION AGENTS,
      MYLESHAWAR COMPLEX,
      BESIDES DEEPAK PETROL BUNK,
      B.H.ROAD, SHIVAMOGA - 577 201.
      REP. BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR,
      Y.ASHOK KUMAR,
      S/O LATE Y.M.ADINARAYASETTY,
      AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
                                         ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.M.S.RAJENDRA PRASAD, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
    SRI.K.C.SHANTAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     ASK RESOURCES INDIA
       PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY,
       INCORPORATED UNDER INDIAN
       COMPANIES ACT, 1956
       NO.1, PALAT MADHAVAN ROAD,
       IVIAHALINGAPURAM,
                             2


     CHENNAI - 600 034, TAMILNADU STATE.
     NEW BUSINESS OFFICE AT
     PLOT NO.1-115/A-1503-A-BLOCK,
     FORTUNE TOWERS, MADHAPUR,
     HYDERABAD - 500 081,
     TELANGANA STATE.
     REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY & POA
     SRI. SAI GOPAL,
     S/O SRI LAKSHMI NARASIMAHA DAS,
     AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
     R/AT 2-2-21/2, SECOND FLOOR,
     DURGA BAI DESHMUK COLONY,
     SHIVAM ROAD, HYDERABAD - 560 013.

2.   SRI. G.S.MARUTHI,
     S/O LATE SUBBARYA SETTY,
     AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,

3.   SRI. G.M.RAMESH,
     S/O G.MARUTHI,
     AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
     BOTH RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE
     R/AT MEERA SADHA, POST OFFICE ROAD,
     THYGARAJA NAGAR CHALLAKERE - 577 522,
     CHITTRADURGA DISTRICT.

4.   SRI. G.S.BHATHAVATSALASETTY,
     S/O LATE SUBBRAYA SETTY,
     AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,

5.   SRI. G.B.SUBBARAJU,
     S/O SRI. G.S.BHAKHAVATSALASETTY,
     AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
     RESPONDENT NOS.4 AND 5 ARE
     RESIDING AT ARASU NILAYAM,
     VENKATAPPA LAY-OUT,
     NEAR SRINIVASA NURSING HOME,
     CHALLAKERE - 577 522,
     CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.               ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S.BALARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO 5;
    R1 - SERVED)
                               3


      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 25.07.2022 PASSED
IN I.A.NO.II IMPLEADING APPLICATION BY THE LEARNED
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHITRADURGA
IN COM.O.S.NO.08/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.

      THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

Proposed defendant Nos.5 and 6 in

Com.O.S.No.8/2021 on the file of Principal District and

Session Judge, Chitradurga have filed this writ petition

challenging an order dated 25.07.2022, by which, they

were impleaded in the suit.

2. The suit in Com.O.S.No.8/2021 was filed for

recovery of Rs.2,03,86,355/-. Plaintiff claimed that

defendants were in the business of buying imported pulses

in the name of M.R. Industries with whom the plaintiff was

doing business from the year 2011. Likewise, defendant

Nos.2 and 4 were partners of Y.A. Traders with whom

plaintiff had business and that defendants being partners

of the said firms were liable to pay Rs.2,03,86,355/-. In

furtherance thereof, the plaintiff claimed that defendant

Nos.1 and 3 executed a memorandum of mortgage by way

of deposit of title deeds to cover a sum of

Rs.1,16,00,000/-. By the said mortgage, they mortgaged a

property bearing Sy.No.365 situated at Challakere, Kasaba

Hobli, Chitradurga District and they deposited original

documents of title. Since the defendants showed no signs

of repaying the money, plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of

Rs.1,16,00,000/- towards principal, a sum of

Rs.79,35,688/- being interest till 31.03.2021 and

Rs.8,50,667/- being interest up to 31.03.2021.

3. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 contested the suit and

claimed that they were not liable to pay the amount and

inter alia contended that suit was liable to be dismissed for

non impleadment of M.R. Industries and Y.A. Traders who

were the partnership concerns with whom plaintiff

allegedly had business.

4. Hence, the plaintiff filed an application to

implead the petitioners herein. Notice of the said

application was served to the petitioners herein who

engaged an advocate and entered appearance. However,

they did not file objection to the application. The trial Court

considered the averments of the plaint as well as their

written statement and held that petitioners are necessary

parties to the proceedings and hence allowed the

application in terms of the order dated 25.07.2022. Being

aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition is filed.

5. Learned Senior counsel representing the

petitioners submitted that petitioners were not given

adequate opportunity to file objections. He pointed out to

the order sheet maintained by the trial Court which

indicated that notice of the application was served and was

set down for arguments on the application on 16.07.2022

which was adjourned to 20.07.2022. On the said date,

there was no appearance for the petitioners and they had

not filed objections. The trial Court therefore based on the

available material considered the application and allowed

it.

6. Learned Senior counsel further contended that

petitioners have nothing to do with the mortgage deed

executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff and

therefore, an opportunity has to be granted to the

petitioners.

7. It is seen from the averments of the plaint that

the plaintiff categorically stated that defendant Nos.2 and

4 were doing business in the name of M.R. Industries and

Y.A. Traders. Plaintiff has categorically mentioned that

defendant Nos.2 and 4 being partners of the said firms had

executed a mortgage deed in respect of immovable

property. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 had also contended in

their written statement that the suit is liable to be

dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties namely

petitioners herein.

In that view of the matter, trial Court was justified in

allowing the application and ordering impleadment of the

petitioners herein as defendant Nos.5 and 6 in the original

suit. There is no error warranting interfere by this Court.

Hence, writ petition is dismissed. It is open for the

petitioners to file their written statement by 23.09.2022 or

latest by the next adjourned date before trial Court.

Sd/-

JUDGE pgg