Karnataka High Court
Smt Archanamma vs Sri H N Manjunath on 7 June, 2023
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:19296
WP No. 25871 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 25871 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. ARCHANAMMA
W/O LATE RAGHUNATHA M
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
2. M.R. ANIL KUMAR
Digitally S/O LATE RAGHUNATHA M
signed by AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
NANDINI MS
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka 3. M.R. SUNIL KUMAR
S/O LATE RAGHUNATHA M
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
MARASANAHALLI VILLAGE
GUNDALGURKI POST
KASABA HOBLI
CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK
AND DISTRICT - 562 104.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY G.V, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI H.N. MANJUNATH
S/O DODDA NARASIMHAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
RESIDING AT HALE GUDIBANDE
KASABA HOBLI
GUDIBANDE TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT
PIN-562 203.
2. SRI M.Y. PUTTAPPA
S/O LATE PATEL M YARRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT MACHAVALAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, GUDIBANDE
TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR
DISTRICT PIN-562 203.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:19296
WP No. 25871 of 2022
3. SRI M.N. RANGA SWAMY NAIDU
S/O LATE T M NARAYANA SWAMY NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS.
4. SRI NAVEEN
S/O M N RANGA SWAMY NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
5. SRI M.N. CHINNA SWAMY NAIDU
S/O LATE T M NARAYANA SWAMY NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
6. SRI M.C. MANJUNATH
S/O CHINNASWAMY NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
7. SRI M.S. VENKATACHALAPATHI
S/O LATE M T SANJEEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
8. SRI D. SRINIVAS
S/O LATE DODDAPPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT MARASANAHALLI VILLAGE
GUNDALGURKI POST KASABA HOBLI
CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK
AND DISTRICT PIN-562 104.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH A ORDER DATED
02.08.2022 ON I.A.NO. 7 IN O.S.NO. 71/2019 PENDING ON FILE OF
THE HONBLE 1ST ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
CHIKKABALLAPUR AT ANNEXURE -D AND PLEASED TO ALLOW THE
I.A.NO. 7 AS PRAYED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is directed against the impugned order on
IA.no.VII passed in O.S.No.71/2019 by the I Addl. Senior Civil
Judge & JMFC, Chikkaballapura, whereby the said application filed
NC: 2023:KHC:19296
WP No. 25871 of 2022
by the petitioners under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC seeking
impleadment as additional defendant no.7 to 9 in the suit was
rejected by the Trial Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also
perused the material on record.
3. The material on record discloses that respondent nos.1
and 2 instituted the suit in O.S.No.71/2019 against respondent no.3
to 8 - defendants for specific performance for an alleged sale
agreement dated 18.02.2008 and other reliefs in relation to suit
schedule immovable properties.
4. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners
claiming to be the family members of the defendants-respondent
nos.3 to 8 filed the instant application under Order I Rule 10(2) of
CPC seeking impleadement on the ground that they had
independent right, title and interest over the suit schedule
properties. The said application having been opposed by the
respondents, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order
rejecting the application, aggrieved by which, the petitioners are
before this Court by way of present petition.
NC: 2023:KHC:19296
WP No. 25871 of 2022
5. A perusal of the material on record including the
impugned order will indicate that it is an undisputed fact that the
petitioners are neither the parties to the alleged sale agreement nor
successors or legal representatives of the parties to the sale
agreement or subsequent purchasers /pendente lite purchasers of
the suit schedule properties. The Trial Court also noticed the fact
that separate litigation initiated by the petitioners is pending before
this Court in RSA No.767/2023 filed by the petitioners. Under these
circumstances, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of KASTURI V. IYYAMPERUMAL & OTHERS - AIR 2005 SC
2813, I am of the considered opinion that the Trial Court was fully
justified in coming to the conclusion that the petitioners are neither
proper nor necessary parties to the suit and were not entitled to
seek impleadement as defendants in the suit. Upon
reconsideration, re-evaluation and re-appreciation of the entire
material on record, I am of the view that the impugned order
passed by the Trial Court rejecting IA.no.VII cannot be said to
suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can be same said to have
occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in
the present petition in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227
NC: 2023:KHC:19296
WP No. 25871 of 2022
of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the case of
Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423.
6. It is however, made clear that any order, judgment &
decree etc, made / passed in O.S.No.71/2019 would neither be
binding upon the petitioners nor affect or cause prejudice to their
alleged right, title, interest or possession, if any in the suit schedule
properties, nor affect their rights or contentions in pending RSA
No.767/2023 filed by them before this Court and all rival
contentions of all parties are kept open and no opinion is
expressed on the same.
Subject to the aforesaid directions, petition stands disposed
of without interfering with the impugned order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NMS
