Karnataka High Court
M/S. Jp Infra (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd vs Sri. B. V. Papanna S/O Valappa on 22 February, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7692
WP No. 4081 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 4081 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
M/S. JP INFRA (MUMBAI) PVT. LTD.,
(REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANY ACT, 1956),
REPRESENTED BY ITS,
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER (COO),
SRI AJAY NAIR,
R/O 4TH FLOOR, VIRAJ TOWRS,
NEAR WETERN EXPRESS
HIGHWAY METRO STATION,
WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY,
ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI-400 093.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI G. PAPIREDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI SHARAN B.T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. B. V. PAPANNA S/O VALAPPA,
Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
VANDANA S R/A NO. 2/11, I CROSS,
Location: High BILEKAHALLI, BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
Court of Karnataka
BENGALURU - 560 076.
2. SMT. ESHWARI,
W/O LATE B. V. ERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
3. KUM. CHANDANA B. E.,
D/O LATE B. V. ERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.
4. SRI TEJAS B. E.,
S/O LATE B. V. ERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7692
WP No. 4081 of 2023
5. HARSHITH B. E.,
S/O LATE B. V. ERAPPA,
RESPONDENTS NO. 2 TO 5 ARE PREESENTLY
R/A BILEKAHALLI LAYOUT,
BASAVALINGAPPA NAGAR,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 076.
6. SRI B. V. SAMPATH,
S/O LATE VALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
7. SRI B. S. NAGARAJ,
S/O B. V. SAMPATH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
8. SRI B. S. RAVI,
S/O B. V. SAMPATH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
9. SRI B. S. RAMESH,
S/O B. V. SAMPATH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
10. SMT. KATAMMA,
W/O LATE SAMPATH B. V.,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS.
11. SMT B. S. BINDU,
W/O LATE SAMPATH B. V.,
AGED ABOUT 36 EYARS.
RESPONDENTS NO. 6 TO 11 ARE
R/O NO.16, 27TH 'B' CROSS,
GEETHA COLONY,
JAYANAGAR, 4TH BLOCK,
BENGALURU - 560 011.
12. SRI M. UMESH,
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
13. SRI M. RAJU,
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:7692
WP No. 4081 of 2023
14. M. VIJAY KUMAR,
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO. 12 TO 14 ARE
R/A NO. 98, 3RD CROSS,
BILEKAHALLI LAYOUT,
BANNERUGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE-76.
15. SMT. RENUKA,
W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
16. SRI SATISH B. M.,
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
17. SRI KIRAN B. M.,
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
18. SMT. DEEPU B. M.,
D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO. 15 TO 18 ARE
R/O BILEKAHALLI VILLAGE,
NEAR GOVT. SCHOOL,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 076.
19. SHASHI KUMAR,
S/O LATE NARAYANAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.
20. SMT. ASHA,
W/O B. S. RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
21. SRI SRIKANTH,
W/O LATE NARAYANAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO. 19 TO 21 ARE
R/A BASAVALINGAPPA NAGAR,
BILEKAHALLI LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 076.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:7692
WP No. 4081 of 2023
22. SMT. PUSHPAMMA,
W/O LATE B. V. JAYARAMA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
23. SRI MURALI,
S/O LATE B. V. JAYARAMA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
24. SRI KISHORE,
S/O LATE B. V. JAYARAMA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
25. SRI DEEPAK,
S/O LATE B. V. JAYARAMA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO. 22 O 25 ARE
R/A BALAGERE VILLAGE,
VARTHUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DHANANJAY V. JOSHI FOR SRI VACHAN H.R., ADVOCATES
FOR R-7, R-11, R-17 AND R-20
R-1 TO R-5 SERVED, R-12, R-13, R-14, R-15, R-16,
R-18, R-19, R-21, R-23, R-24, R-25 SERVED )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
04.01.2023 AT ANNEXURE-D PASSED BY THE XXVII ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE, BENGALURU DISMISSING THE
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) OF CPD 1908 R/W SEC 151
OF CPC FILED BY THE PETITIONER ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
I.A.NO.8.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:7692
WP No. 4081 of 2023
ORDER
This petition by the impleading applicant in I.A.No.8 is
directed against the impugned order dated 04.01.2023 passed in
O.S.No.3459/2020 by the XXVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bangalore, whereby the said application filed by the
petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment was
rejected by the trial court.
2. Heard learned Senior counsel appearing for both the
parties and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the
respondents 1 to 5 instituted the aforesaid suit against the
remaining respondents for partition and separate possession of
their alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties.
During the pendency of the said suit, the petitioner claiming to have
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 02.12.2006
between plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1, which was
subsequently assigned in favour of Sister concern company on
15.11.2008, filed the instant application seeking impleadment on
the ground that it was both proper and necessary party to the suit.
The said application was opposed by the respondents on various
NC: 2024:KHC:7692
grounds. 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
petition.
4. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the trial
court has come to the conclusion that the claim of the impleading
applicant was barred by limitation. In my considered opinion, the
said finding recorded by the trial court is erroneous, in as much as
while considering the application for impleadment, it was not open
for the trial court to decide the merits / demerits of the rival
contentions including the claim of limitation and as such, the
impugned order deserves to be set aside and the application
deserves to be disposed of by issuing certain directions.
5. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) Petition is hereby disposed of.
(ii) The impugned order dated 04.01.2023 passed on I.A.no.8
in O.S.No.3459/2020 by the trial court is hereby set aside.
(iii) I.A.No.8 is disposed of by holding that any judgment,
order or decree etc., passed / to be passed in O.S.No.3459/2020
NC: 2024:KHC:7692
would not be binding upon the petitioner or affect its alleged right,
title, interest or possession, if any, over the suit schedule property.
(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to institute
appropriate suit in relation to its claim before the competent civil
court. If such a suit is instituted by the petitioner, the respondents
would be entitled to contest the same by putting forth all defences.
(v) It is further directed that in the event such a suit is filed by
the petitioner against the respondents, the Registry of the trial court
shall post the matter before the very same trial court before whom
O.S.No.3459/2020 is pending for disposal in accordance with law.
(vi) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter including
the issue of limitation in O.S.No.3459/2015 as well as in the suit to
be filed by the petitioner are kept open and no opinion is expressed
on the same.
SD/-
JUDGE
Srl.
