Karnataka High Court
The Mysore Electro Chemicals Works Ltd vs The Commissioner on 4 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44437
WP No. 29278 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 29278 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
THE MYSORE ELECTRO CHEMICALS WORKS LTD.,
EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,
MEC FACTORY ROAD,
YESHWANTHPURA, BANGALORE
REPRESENTED BY ITS GPA HOLDER
SRI. G. GAJARAJ
S/O D. GOPAL,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
NO.1043/3, 6TH CROSS,
SRIRAMAPURAM,
BANGALORE-560021.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. UMASHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. NARASIMHA MURTHY G.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
Digitally signed
BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
by
MARKONAHALLI
DASARAHALLI DIVISION (NEAR MEI COLONY)
RAMU PRIYA BAGALAGUNTE,
Location: HIGH BANGALORE-560057.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PEENYA INDUSTRIAL SUB-DIVISION,
DASARAHALLI ZONE, WARD NO.41,
BANGALORE-560058.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE SERVED ON BBMP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 19.10.2024 ON IA NO.01/2024 UNDER ORDER 3 RULE 1 OF
CPC IN OS NO.4317/2010 PENDING ON FILE OF THE HON'BLE X
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44437
WP No. 29278 of 2024
ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (CCH-41)
AT (ANNEXURE-E) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
A general power of attorney holder of the plaintiff in
O.S.No.4317/2010 pending trial before the XL Additional City
Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (henceforth referred
to as 'Trial Court') has filed this petition challenging an order
dated 19.10.2024 by which, I.A.No.1/2024 filed by the
Secretary of plaintiff under Order III Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (henceforth referred to as 'CPC') was allowed
and I.A.No.2/2024 filed by the general power of attorney holder
of the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of
CPC, was rejected.
2. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they
were arrayed before the Trial Court. The petitioner herein was
the GPA holder of the plaintiff, while the respondents were the
defendants before the Trial Court.
3. The suit in O.S.No.4317/2010 was filed for
perpetual injunction against the defendants. The suit was
NC: 2024:KHC:44437
contested by the defendants. Since the facts pleaded in the suit
are not relevant to decide this writ petition, the same are not
mentioned. When the suit was set down for arguments, the
Secretary of plaintiff filed an application (I.A.No.1/2024) under
Order III Rule 1 of CPC to permit him to continue the suit, while
the GPA holder of the plaintiff filed an application
(I.A.No.2/2024) under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151
of CPC to delete the name of the plaintiff represented by its
power of attorney and permit him to continue the suit and to
delete line No.1 in paragraph No.2 and line No.9 in paragraph
No.3 of the plaint.
4. I.A.No.1/2024 was opposed by the GPA holder of
the plaintiff as well as the defendants and I.A.No.2/2024 was
opposed by the defendants.
5. The Trial Court in terms of the impugned order
allowed the application (I.A.No.1/2024) filed by the Secretary
of plaintiff and rejected the application (I.A.No.2/2024) filed by
the GPA holder of the plaintiff on the ground that the suit is
filed in the year 2010 by a Cooperative Housing Society
represented by its GPA holder. It held that the evidence of the
NC: 2024:KHC:44437
parties was concluded and when the case was set down for
arguments, the GPA holder of the plaintiff had come up with an
application to amend the plaint and to delete the line No.1 in
paragraph No.2 and line No.9 in paragraph No.3 of the plaint. It
held that the Secretary of the plaintiff-Society had also filed
I.A.No.1/2024 seeking permission to prosecute the suit on the
ground that alleged power of attorney executed in favour of
Mr. G. Gajaraj was revoked and that the Society should
represent in the suit through its Secretary. The Trial Court held
that the cause-title clearly revealed that the suit was filed by
the Society through power of attorney, who now claims to be
the owner of the suit property. Therefore, it held that the
application (I.A.No.2/2024) was not bonafide and as such, the
application was not maintainable.
6. Being aggrieved by the said order, GPA holder of
the plaintiff is before this Court in this writ petition.
7. The learned counsel for GPA holder of the plaintiff
contended that the Society had executed an unregistered
agreement, power of attorney and an affidavit evidencing the
fact that it already sold the property to Mr. G. Gajaraj. He
NC: 2024:KHC:44437
contends that Mr. G. Gajaraj was in fact the owner of the suit
property and that by mistake, he had filed a suit as
representing the Society. He therefore, contends that the
purchaser "Mr. G. Gajaraj" be permitted to be substituted in the
plaintiff - Society.
8. I have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for GPA holder of the plaintiff.
9. The suit is filed in the year 2010 by the Society
represented by its GPA holder. He had pursued the suit as
power of attorney of the plaintiff. Long after the trial in the suit
had concluded, the GPA holder of the plaintiff claimed that the
plaintiff-Society had conveyed the suit property in terms of an
agreement of sale and a power of attorney and that he is the
owner of the suit property in possession. He therefore, wanted
the name of the plaintiff-Society to be replaced by his name.
This claim of the power of attorney, that too at the fag end of
the suit was improbable and indigestible in view of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Suraj
Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd., vs. State of Haryana and
another [2012 (1) SCC 656]. This was definitely
NC: 2024:KHC:44437
impermissible as that would change the nature of the suit as
well as cause of action. Besides this, the Secretary of the
plaintiff-Society himself had filed an application seeking
permission of the Court to pursue the suit, which was rightly
allowed by the Trial Court. Therefore, the prayer of the suit
cannot be changed at the fag end of the proceedings. The Trial
Court has rightly considered the same and has rightly rejected
the application filed by GPA holder of the plaintiff. In that view
of the matter, there is no error committed by the Trial Court in
allowing I.A.No.1/2024 and rejecting I.A.No.2/2024 warranting
interference by this Court.
10. Hence, this writ petition lacks merit and is
dismissed.
11. It is however, open for the GPA holder of the
plaintiff to file a separate suit, if it is permitted in law.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE
PMR
