Karnataka High Court
M/S Krushi Promoters vs Umesh K P on 5 February, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:4800
WP No. 203 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 203 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
M/S. KRUSHI PROMOTERS
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
SRI. B.S. NAGARAJU, 48 YEARS,
HOUSE NO.733, "SRI KUTEERA"
9TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN,
HMT EXTENSION,
BENGALURU - 560 073.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UMESH K.P
S/O LATE PUTTAPPA S.K
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH
R/O KAGODU VILLAGE,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
KAGODU POST, SAGAR TALUK,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 500401.
2. GANAPATHI K.P
S/O LATE PUTTAPPA S.K
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/O NO. A006 SHRI VISHU PEARLS APARTMENT
SHANTIPURA MAIN ROAD,
NEAR HDFC BANK, ELECTRONIC CITY,
BENGALURU - 560 100.
3. SMT. ANUSHYA
W/O KAGODU ANNAPPA,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:4800
WP No. 203 of 2024
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R/O NO.18, "DIVYASREE NILAYA"
KHB COLONY, SAGAR TALUK,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 500 401.
4. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI
W/O PADMANABHA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/O NO.29, SRI. VIJAYALAKSHMI NILAYA,
INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT,
1ST MAIN ROAD,
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
5. SMT. ANJALI,
W/O CHANDRASHEKARA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/O NO.17, WILLINGTON APARTMENT,
WILLINGTON ROAD,
RICHMOND TOWN,
BANGALORE - 560 025.
6. DHEMANTH,
S/O MOHAN,
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,
SINCE MINOR REPT BY SMT. ANUSHUYA
R/O NO.18, "DIVYASREE NILAYA"
KHB COLONY, SAGAR TALUK,
SHIMOGGA DISTRICT - 500 401.
7. SRI. K. VENKAPPA,
S/O SAVAJI KANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/O KAGODU VILLAGE, SAGAR TALUK,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 500 401.
8. SMT. SUVARNAMMA,
W/O LATE S.K. PUTTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R/O KAGODU VILLAGE,
SAGAR TALUK,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 500 401.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:4800
WP No. 203 of 2024
9. SRI. RAMESHA K.P
S/O S.K. PUTTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/O 330, GEENA DEVELOPERS,
INDIRANAGAR, 1ST STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 038.
10. SRI. GIRISHA K.P
S/O LATE S.K PUTTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT45 YEARS,
R/O KAGODU VILLAGE,
SAGAR TALUK,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 500 401.
11. SMT. MANJAMMA,
W/O M.K. CHOWDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/O MELAVARIGE VILLAGE,
MASOORU POST - 577401
SAGAR TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
12. SRI. MOHAMMED ANEES,
S/O S. MOHAMMED,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/O NEHRUNAGAR,
SAGAR, G.M ROAD,
SAGAR - 577401.
13. SRI. MOHAMMED USSAIN,
S/O S. MOHAMMED,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/O NEHRUNAGAR,
SAGAR, G.M ROAD,
SAGAR - 577 401.
14. SMT. VANITHA,
W/O NAGARAJ B,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
NO.13, NADAVALLI VILLAGE,
TYAGARTHI POST,
SAGAR TALUK-577 431.
...RESPONDENTS
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:4800
WP No. 203 of 2024
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAGAR IN OS NO. 25/21 IN
SO FAR AS PETITIONER CONCERNED DTD 15.11.23 VIDE
ANNEXURE-E.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is by the proposed defendant in
O.S.No.25/2021 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge
and JMFC, Sagar is directed against the impugned order passed
on I.A.No.5 dated 15.11.2023 whereby the application filed by
the plaintiffs seeking impleadment of the petitioner herein and
another as additional defendant Nos.12 and 13 was allowed by
the Trial Court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents and perused the material on
record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that
respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit
against respondent Nos.3 to 13 for declaration, partition and
other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable
property.
NC: 2024:KHC:4800
4. During the pendency of the said suit, the plaintiffs
filed the instant application-I.A.No.5 under Order 1 Rule 10 of
CPC seeking impleadment of the petitioner herein and another
as additional defendant Nos.12 and 13 on the ground that they
have purchased item No.6 of the suit schedule property vide
registered sale deed dated 20.03.2020 executed in their favour
by defendant Nos.1, 2 and others. The said application having
been opposed by the proposed defendants, the Trial Court
proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the application.
Aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way
of the present petition.
5. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that
the Trial Court has correctly and properly appreciated the
material on record and arrived at the correct conclusion that
the petitioner herein and another, being alleged purchasers of
item No.6 of the suit schedule property, are proper and
necessary parties to the suit, in as much as their presence is
required for the purpose of effectually and finally deciding the
issue in controversy between the parties. While arriving at the
same conclusion, the Trial Court held as under:
NC: 2024:KHC:4800
"ORDER ON I.A No.V
1. Vide this Order I shall dispose of an
application under order 1 Rule 10 of CPC moved on
behalf of the applicant/plaintiffs to implead 2 persons
namely Gayathri Devi, Krushi Promoters and
Smt.Vanitha as defendants No.12 and 13 in the
present case.
2. Vide the instant application it is the
contention of the applicant that, the plaintiffs have
filed the suit against the defendants for the relief of
partition and separate possession. The proposed
defendants are the purchasers of the Item no.6 of
the suit and property and having direct interest in
the suit schedule properties. The present suit being
the partition, all the persons having interest and co-
owners are necessary and proper parties. In order
to decide the dispute between the suit of the parties
effectually and finally the presence of the proposed
defendants are necessary. On these grounds prayer
is made to allow the application.
3. On the other hand the proposed
defendants have filed reply.
4. Arguments heard on behalf of plaintiff
and proposed defendants.
5. The suit of the plaintiffs is for partition
and separate possession in the suit schedule
properties. According to the applicant the proposed
defendants are also purchasers of Item no.6 of the
suit property and having rights in the suit properties.
In partition suit all the persons having direct interest
in the subject matter of the suit has to be arrayed in
the suit. The defendants or proposed defendants
have not denied that the proposed defendants are
having interest being the purchasers of suit lands.
In order to decide the dispute between the parties
NC: 2024:KHC:4800
effectually and finally, the presence of proposed
defendants are necessary. Moreover, the judgment
binds and affects the rights of the proposed
defendants. In the light of the above discussion, I
proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
I.A.No.V filed by
applicants/plaintiffs under Order I
Rule 10 read with section 151 of Civil
Procedure Code is hereby allowed
and no order as to the cost.
In the result the proposed
defendants are hereby impleaded as
defendant No.12 and 13 in the
present case.
For carrying out the
amendment and to furnish the
amended plaint.
Call on 27.11.2023."
6. In my considered opinion, the impugned order
passed by the Trial Court cannot be said to suffer from any
illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to be capricious
or perverse or as having occasioned failure of injustice
warranting interference by this Court in exercising its
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as
held in Radhey Shyam and another vs. Chhabi Nath and
others reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423.
NC: 2024:KHC:4800
7. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of without
interfering with the impugned order. Liberty is reserved in
favour of the petitioner to file written statement and contest
the suit and raise all the contention available in law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VM
