Karnataka High Court
Vijayakumar S Durgad vs Sri Mallikarjun Swamy Hiremath on 18 December, 2023
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:46131
WP No. 2494 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 2494 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
VIJAYAKUMAR S DURGAD
S/O SHAKARAPPA SIDDAPPA DURGAD
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
RESIDING AT HORTHI VILLAGE
INDI TALUK, VIJAYPURA DISTRICT-586117.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NITHIN GOWDA K.C., ADV. FOR
SRI PRASANNA KUMAR P., ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI MALLIKARJUN SWAMY HIREMATH
S/O LATE NEELAKANTAIAH HIREMATH
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
Digitally RESIDING AT NO.6/A BLOCK
signed by A K ALIG FLAT, NANDINI LAYOUT
CHANDRIKA
BENGALURU-560096.
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF 2. VISHWANATH HIREMATH
KARNATAKA S/O MANTAYYA HIREMATH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.908/A
7TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS
PRAKASH NAGAR, BENGALURU-560021.
3. RUDRESH
S/O LATE PHALAKSHAPPA
AGED 46 YEARS
R/AT NO.2, 1ST A CROSS
MUDALAPALYA, NVG NAGAR
BENGALURU-560072.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:46131
WP No. 2494 of 2021
4. SRI JAGADGURU MURAGARAJENDRA
BRUHANMATHA
BY ITS MATHADTHIPATHI
P B ROAD, CHITRADURGA-577501.
5. SRI SRIMAN NIRANJANA JAGADGURU
SHIVAMURTHY MURUGARAJENDRA
SWAMIGALU @
SRI SHIVAMURTHY SHARANARU
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
MATHADHIPATHI OF SRI JAGADGURU
MURAGARAJENDRA BRUHANMATHA
P B ROAD, CHITRADURGA-577501.
6. SRI S K BASAVARAJAN
S/O KARISIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
SRI JAGADGURU MURAGARAJENDRA
BRUHANMATHA
PA HOLDER OF 5TH RESPONDENT
AND ADMINISTRATOR OF 4TH RESPONDENT
PB ROAD, CHITRADURGA-577501.
7. SRI SARPABHUSANA SHIVAYOGIGALA MUTT TRUST
KEMPEGOWDA CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560009
BY ITS PRESIDENT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.S. MURALI, ADV. FOR R4 AND R5
R2, R6 AND R7 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED
V/O DATED 06.04.2021 SERVICE OF
NOTICE IN RESPECT OF R3 IS H/S)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 09.11.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LV ADDL.
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-56) IN
O.S.NO.5057/2007 THEREBY REJECTING THE I.A.NO.XIV FILED
BY THE APPLICANT/ PETITIONER SEEKING TO IMPLEAD
HIMSELF AS DEFENDANT NO.5 (PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-
A) AND CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE I.A.NO.XIV FILED BY THE
APPLICANT/PETITIONER HEREIN IN O.S.NO.5057/2007
(PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-D.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:46131
WP No. 2494 of 2021
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner/impleading applicant in
O.S.No.5057/2007 on the file of LV Additional City Civil
and Sessions Judge, Bangalore is before this Court,
aggrieved by order dated 09.11.2020 rejecting I.A.No.14
filed under Order I Rule 10 of CPC to come on record as
additional defendant.
2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Nithin Gowda K.C., for
Sri.Prasanna Kumar P., learned counsel for petitioner,
learned counsel Sri.B.S.Murali for Respondents No.4 and 5
Perused the writ petition papers.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
suit of the respondents/plaintiffs is one for a judgment and
decree to declare that when the second defendant is ceased
to be Mathadhipathi of first defendant-Mutt and to declare
that the second defendant is not competent to deal with or
to interfere with the management and administration of 4th
NC: 2023:KHC:46131
defendant-Trust and its properties. Learned counsel would
submit that the petitioner being devotee of the first
defendant-Mutt is an interested person. Learned counsel
would submit that the suit filed by the
respondents/plaintiffs is a representative suit. When a
representative suit is filed, any person could come on
record as interested person. Learned counsel would further
submit that the impleadment of petitioner as additional
defendant would assist the Court in proper appreciation of
dispute between the parties. The presence of the petitioner
would aid the court to get additional material. Learned
counsel would further submit that in a representative suit,
interested party could come on record at any stage of the
proceedings. Further, learned counsel placing reliance on
the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1958
SC 886 in the case of RAZIA BEGUM v/s SAHEBZADI
ANWAR BEGUM AND OTHERS would submit that
declaration would affect not only the parties to the suit,
but would generations to come. Thus, he would pray for
allowing the writ petition, consequently allowing I.A.No.14.
NC: 2023:KHC:46131
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view
that no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned
order. Moreover, the impugned order neither perverse nor
suffers from any material irregularity so as to warrant
interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. The suit as filed by respondents/plaintiffs is a
representative suit under Order I Rule 8 of CPC. The
plaintiffs claims that they are devotees of the first
defendant. When the devotees have already initiated
proceedings under the above stated suit and when they
are in a position to protect the interest of all the devotees
who are interested in first defendant-Mutt, the presence of
petitioner as additional defendant to the suit would not be
necessary. The petitioner/impleading applicant is neither
necessary nor proper party to the suit. The suit filed in
representative capacity by plaintiffs would not require the
presence of petitioner. Therefore, I do not find any error
in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. The
NC: 2023:KHC:46131
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court relied on by the
petitioner would have no application to the facts of the
present case wherein it is held that result of a declaratory
decree on the question of status, affects not only the
parties actually before the Court, but generations to come.
The devotee/plaintiffs have sought declaration on behalf of
all the devotees in representative capacity. In a
representative suit, representatives of a group shall
represent. Where there are numerous persons having the
same interest in one foot, one or more or such persons
may sue on behalf of or for the benefit of all persons so
interested. All persons having interest need not come
before the Court.
There is no ground to interfere with the impugned
order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MPK
CT:bms
