Karnataka High Court
Sri. S. M. Puttaraju vs Smt. Yellamma on 16 June, 2023
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:20742
WP No. 9944 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 9944 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. S. M. PUTTARAJU
S/O LATE SRI S M MACHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO 481
1ST F CROSS ROAD,
3RD STAGE, 4TH DIVISION
8TH MAIN ROAD,
BASAVESHWARANAGARA
BENGALURU 560079
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SOMASHEKARAIAH H M., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
NARASIMHA
AND:
MURTHY VANAMALA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. SMT. YELLAMMA
KARNATAKA
D/O LATE VENKATA BHOVI
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
2. SMT BHARATHI
D/O LATE SALLAPURAMMA
W/O LATE SRINIVASA
SOLLAPURAMMA DIED
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
3. SRI MANJUNATH
S/O LATE SALLAPURAMMA
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:20742
WP No. 9944 of 2023
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
4. SMT SAVITHA
D/O LATE SALLAPURAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R1 TO R4 ARE R/AT
NO 96, 6TH MAIN ROAD,
2ND CROSS, JAI MARUTHI NAGAR
BENGALURU 560096
5. JAYAMMA
D/O LATE BYRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT NO 21, 7TH CROSS
BHOVIPALYA,
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM
BENGALURU 560086
6. SMT NANJAMMA
W/O LATE NARASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
7. SMT PRABHAVATHI B S
D/O LATE NARASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R6 AND R7 ARE R/AT
NO 176, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
2ND CROSS, BHOVIPALYA
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM
BENGALURU 560086
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.N.BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. V.B.SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
SRI. T.SHESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R6 &
R7)
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:20742
WP No. 9944 of 2023
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET THE ORDER
OF THE TRIAL COURT DATED 21.04.2023, IN OS 370/2016
AS PER ANNEXURE-Q WHEREIN, THE HONBLE TRIAL
COURT WITHOUT PASSING THE CONSIDERABLE ORDER
ON I.A. NO. III FILED BY THE PETITIONER, SIMPLY PASS
THE ORDER IN VIEW OF THE COMPROMISE THE PENDING
INTERIM APPLICATION DOES NOT SURVIVES AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition by the impleading applicant in
O.S.No.370/2016 on the file of the IV Additional Senior civil
Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short, 'the
trial Court') is directed against the impugned order dated
21.04.2023 passed in O.S.No.370/2016 whereby, the trial
Court accepted the compromise petition filed by the parties
to the suit without considering or passing any orders on the
impleadment application (I.A.No.III) filed by the petitioner-
impleading applicant.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record.
3. The material on record discloses that it is the
specific contention of the petitioner that he had entered into
NC: 2023:KHC:20742
WP No. 9944 of 2023
an agreement to sell, Power of Attorney, Affidavit [all dated
30.03.2011] with the respondents in relation to the suit
schedule immovable properties. It is contended that the
petitioner had filed an application for impleadment
(I.A.No.III) and despite the same pending consideration,
pursuant to a compromise petition filed between the parties
to the suit, the trial Court proceeded to accept the
compromise without considering the impleadment
application filed by the petitioner, who is before this Court
by way of the present petition.
4. A perusal of the material on records discloses
that the petitioner claims right, title, interest and possession
to the suit schedule property pursuant to the aforesaid
documents said to have been executed in his favour.
However, the petitioner was not a party to the suit and his
alleged rights, if any, would necessarily have to be
ventilated by him by way of a separate suit by taking
recourse to such remedies as available in law. Further, in
order to safeguard the alleged right, title, interest and
possession of the petitioner, suffice it to state that any
NC: 2023:KHC:20742
WP No. 9944 of 2023
judgment, decree, order, compromise, settlement,
compromise decree etc., passed /to be passed in
O.S.No.370/2016 and in any other suit or proceedings
including revenue proceedings between the parties would
not be binding upon the petitioner nor shall it affect or
cause prejudice to the alleged right, title, interest or
possession, if any of the petitioner to the suit schedule
property. As such, I am of the considered opinion that the
impugned order passed by the trial Court does not suffer
from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference of this
Court in exercise of its powers under Article 227 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.
Subject to the aforesaid directions, the petition
stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RB
