Karnataka High Court
Sri.S. Vignesh Shishir vs Sri. D.S. Paramesh on 2 February, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:4725
WP No. 2967 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 2967 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI.S. VIGNESH SHISHIR
S/O K SATISH,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO 04
1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS,
NEHRUNAGAR,
SHESHADRIPURAM,
BENGALURU-560 020.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SAJID AHAMAD T DODDAMANI.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. D.S. PARAMESH
S/O SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 13
HARTFIELD ROAD,
Digitally NEW TOWN, P.A 18940
signed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
VANDANA S
Location:
HIGH REP BY GPA HOLDER,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA SRI SHVAKUMAR A
S/O LATE ANJINAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 13
2ND A CROSS, 2ND MAIN,
COCONUR GARDEN,
NAGARABHAVI ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 074.
2. SRI SATHISH K
S/O K JAYARAM,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:4725
WP No. 2967 of 2024
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SIDDA 'N' CLAVE,
FLAT NO. 10, 4TH FLOOR,
NO. 4/9, OLD NO. 31, AND 31/1
1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
NEHARUNAGAR,
SESHADRIPURAM,
BENGALURU-560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.NATARAJ BABA.K.,ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTILCE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DTD 17.07.2023 VIDE ANENXURE-H, REJECTING THE IA,
NO.VIII FILED UNDER ORDER I RULE 10 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC IN
O.S.NO.71/2021 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH-32) AND ALLOW THE IA, NO.VIII
FILED UNDER ORDER I RULE 10 OF CPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed against the impugned order passed
on I.A.No.VIII dated 17.07.2023 in O.S. No.71 of 2021 on the file of
XX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru whereby the
said application filed by the petitioner--impleading applicant under
Order I Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of CPC, permitting him to come on
record as additional defendant in the suit was rejected by the Trial
Court.
2. The material on record discloses that respondent No.1
instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondent No.2 for
NC: 2024:KHC:4725
ejectment and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule
immoveable property.
3. When the matter was posted for judgment by the Trial
Court, the petitioner/impleading applicant filed the instant
application inter alia contending that he was a tenant in actual and
physical possession / occupation of the suit schedule property and
he is paying the rent and that the petitioner is both proper and
necessary party to the suit, without whose presence the suit cannot
be effectively decided or disposed of by the Trial Court. In these
circumstances, the petitioner--the impleading applicant sought for
his impleadment as additional defendant in the suit.
4. The said application was contested by respondent No.1--
plaintiff disputing the jural relationship of landlord and tenant
between himself and the petitioner--the impleading applicant.
5. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court proceeded to
pass the impugned order rejecting the application, aggrieved by
which the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present writ
petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:4725
6. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the
petitioner had filed the instant application when the matter had
been posted / reserved for judgment. The impugned order also
discloses that the Trial Court has recorded a finding against the
petitioner while rejecting the application.
7. It is well-settled law that any judgment, decree or order
passed in a suit would not be binding upon the non-party and
would not affect the said non-party's alleged right, title, interest and
possession over the suit schedule property.
8. Under these circumstances, though several contentions
have been urged by the petitioner and the respondents herein, in
support of their respective claims, without expressing any opinion
on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions and in the light of the
fact that the matter has already been posted for judgment, I deem it
just and appropriate to dispose of this writ petition by modifying the
impugned order and by directing that any judgment, decree or
order, etc., passed / to be passed in O.S. No.71 of 2021 would not
be binding upon the petitioner nor will it affect his alleged right, title,
interest, possession, etc. over the suit schedule property.
NC: 2024:KHC:4725
9. Liberty is also to be reserved in favour of the petitioner to
file appropriate application(s) in the execution proceedings to be
instituted by the respondents pursuant to the judgment and decree
to be passed by the Trial Court.
10. In the result, I pass the following order:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is hereby disposed of .
ii. The impugned order dated 17.07.2023 passed on I.A.
No.VIII in O.S.No.71/ 2021 on the file of XX Addl. City
Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, is modified.
iii. I.A. No.VIII is disposed of by directing that any
judgment, decree, order, etc., passed / to be passed in
O.S.No.71/ 2021 would not be binding upon the
petitioner nor will it affect his alleged right, title, interest,
possession, etc. over the suit schedule property.
iv. Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file
appropriate application(s) in the execution proceedings
to be instituted by the respondents pursuant to the
judgment and decree to be passed by the Trial Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:4725
v. All rival contentions of the petitioner and the
respondents in the present petition, in the suit as well
as in the execution proceedings to be instituted in
future, are kept open and no opinion is expressed on
the same.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DHA
