Karnataka High Court
Mrs P Vasudha vs Mr J Sudha Babu on 22 April, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:15994
WP No. 11191 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.11191 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
MRS P VASUDHA
W/O MR R K PURUSHOTHAM,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
NO.140, FIRST FLOOR,
3RD CROSS, KEMPEGOWDANAGARA,
BYADARAHALLI, MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 091.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BALAJI RAGHUNATHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR J SUDHA BABU
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
S/O V JAYARAM, NO.48/A, 1ST CROSS,
VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 040.
2. MR. KRISHNAMURTHY
Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
LEELAVATHI S R
S/O. SRI. VENKATESHAIAH,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF NO.140, GROUND FLOOR,
KARNATAKA 3RD CROSS, KEMPEGOWDANAGAR,
BYADARAHALLI, MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 091.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DTD 16.11.2022 AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE JUDGE, XXIII ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM
(SCCH-25) BENGALURU IN SC NO.271/2021 PASSED ON IA DTD
06.09.2022 FILED BY THE IMPENDING APPLICANT / PROPOSED
DEFENDANT NO.2 / PETITIONER HEREIN UNDER ORDER 1 RULE
10 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC AND ETC.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:15994
WP No. 11191 of 2024
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition by the impleading applicant in S.C.No.271/2021
is directed against the impugned order dated 16.11.2022 passed
by the XXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby
the application filed by the petitioner - impleading applicant under
Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment was rejected by the
Trial Court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused
the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in
the aforesaid suit filed by respondent No.1 - plaintiff against
respondent No.2 - defendant for ejectment and other reliefs in
relation to the suit schedule immovable property, application for
impleadment filed by the petitioner was rejected by holding as
under:
" ORDERS ON I.A FILED U/O I R.10 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC
The counsel for the impleading applicant has
filed this application praying to implead the
proposed applicant as defendant No.2 in this case.
NC: 2024:KHC:15994
2. In support of the application the
proposed applicant has filed affidavit stating that her
tenant who is the defendant in this case had vacated
the schedule premises and as such she is an
interested party in this case and the property being
her property as such it is just and necessary for her
to come on record in order to defend her interest
with respect to the schedule property as she is the
owner of the property. As she is defending the suit
from the very beginning and as such she is a
necessary party in absence of her tenant and
defendant herein. She had filed a suit in P.Mis.
No.11/2020 before the Hon'ble CCH-3 at Bengaluru
on 13.11.2020 which is preferred much prior to filing
of this case. In the said suit it is her specific case
that the plaintiff of this case had cheated her and
defrauded her and got a fraudulent sale deed done
in his name without paying consideration and thus
he had sought for cancellation of the said deed
dated 15.06.2019 which is pending for adjudication.
This petition filed by the plaintiff on the strength of a
forged rental agreement is not maintainable and
thus case as to be suitably defended by her as the
tenant has vacated the schedule property and no
question arises that her tenant executing the rental
agreement without her concern and he has also
denied in his written statement about the execution
of Ex.P1. As the tenant has left the premises and
has not provided her with his present address and
moreover he is not interested in the premises or this
NC: 2024:KHC:15994
suit and as such she being interested and as her
rights and possession may be effected in the case of
not defending the suit properly without her present
suit cannot be defended and hence prayed for
allowing the application.
3. The counsel for the Plaintiff has filed
objections stating that the application is not
maintainable in this eviction suit. The impleading
applicant is not party to the rental agreement dated
19.05.2020 executed by the defendant in the favour of
the plaintiff and bring the impleading applicant on
record is of no use as it create multiplicity of
proceedings. The impleading applicant is not
concerned to the dispute between the plaintiff and
defendant as it is only a eviction suit filed by the
plaintiff. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the
schedule property and all connected documents are
already produced before this court. No grounds made
out by impleading applicant and accordingly prayed
for dismissal of the application.
4. Heard and perused.
5. I have perused the application, objections
and materials on record. This suit is filed by the
plaintiff seeking relief of ejectment against the
defendant. If the defendant vacated the schedule
premises it is for the plaintiff to report it before this
court or the defendant has to report the same as to
whom he handed over the keys of the schedule
NC: 2024:KHC:15994
premises. This suit before this court is of a limited
consideration and this court has no jurisdiction to
decide the title of the parties. If the parties have any
dispute are at liberty to seek relief before proper court
of jurisdiction. Even if the impleading applicant is
impleaded as this court is not competent to adjudicate
the title of the party and hence no purpose is going to
be served but it only delay the proceedings and
unconcerned / unconnected evidence will flow on
record out of jurisdiction of this court. Therefore as the
impleading applicant is not a proper and necessary
party to the present suit and hence the application
needs to be dismissed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
The application filed by the counsel for
the impleading applicant u/O.I R.10
r/w.Sec.151 of CPC is dismissed.
For evidence of defendant, Call by
25.11.2022."
4. Upon consideration of the entire material on record
including the rival contentions, I am of the considered opinion that
the Trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the application by
coming to the correct conclusion that the petitioner was not proper
or necessary party to the present suit and the impugned order does
NC: 2024:KHC:15994
not suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor has the same resulted
in miscarriage of justice warranting interference by this Court in the
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India as held by the Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Vs.
Chhabi Nath - (2015) 5 SCC 423.
5. It is however made clear that any judgment, decree,
order, compromise, etc., passed in S.C.No.271/2021 by the Trial
Court will not be binding upon the petitioner nor will it affect or
cause prejudice to the rights and contentions, if any, of the
petitioner in the suit schedule property, in any manner whatsoever.
6. Liberty is also reserved in favour of the petitioner to
take recourse to such remedies as available in law.
7. Subject to the aforesaid directions, petition stands
disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SV
