Karnataka High Court
Prajapita Brahma Kumaris vs Smt. S.V Jayashree on 30 November, 2017
Author: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
Bench: P.S. Dinesh Kumar
1
WP No.5370/2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 30th day of November, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
Writ Petition No.5370 /2015 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
PRAJAPITA BRAHMA KUMARIS
ISHWARIYA VISHWA VIDYALAYA
REGD. HQRS, OFFICE, PANDAV BHAWAN
MOUNT ABU, BRANCH OFFICE/
SUB-SERVICE CENTRE, NO.23/2
2ND FLOOR, WARD NO.28, ANDANAPPA GALLI
K.R.SHETTY PET, BANGALORE-2
REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
BRAHMA KUMARI M.SAROJA
D/O.MALLAPPA M
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT NO.6, GOVINDA RAO STREET
NEAR SHESHADRI LAW COLLEGE
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020 ...PETITIONER
(By Shri.BASAVARAJ R. BANNUR, Adv.,)
AND
1. SMT.S.V JAYASHREE
D/O LATE S.VEERABHADRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT DEVERAYAPATNA VILLAGE
TUMKUR TALUK, KASABA HOBLI
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 102
2
WP No.5370/2015
2. S.V.SHIVASHANKAR
S/O LATE S.VEERABHADRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT NO.26, ANDANAPPA LANE
K.R.SETTY PET, AVENUE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 002
3. S.V.RENUKA PRASAD
S/O LATE S.VEERABHADRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT NO.26, ANDANAPPA LANE
K.R.SETTY PET, AVENUE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 002
4. SMT.S.V.VISHALAKSHAMMA
D/O LATE S VEERABHADRAPPA
W/O.G.GOWRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
R/AT NO.71, 10TH CROSS
HANUMANTHANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 019
5. SMT.S.V.ANUSUYA
D/O LATE S VEERABHADRAPPA
W/O.C.SHIVARUDRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
R/AT NO.19, III A MAIN ROAD
8TH CROSS, RPC LAYOUT
BANGALORE-560 040
6. SMT.S.V.SUMITHRA
D/O LATE S.VEERABHADRAPPA
W/O.S.P.SHIVAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
HONNADEVI PRINTING PRESS
BANGALORE-MYSORE MAIN ROAD
BIDADI, RAMANAGARAM TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT-562 315
7. S.R.SIDDARAJU
S/O LATE S REVANNA
3
WP No.5370/2015
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS
NO.220, CUBBONPET MAIN ROAD
BEHIND PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
BANGALORE-560 002
8. SMT.SUSHEELA
W/O.S.R.SIDDARAJU
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
NO.220,CUBBONPET MAIN ROAD
BEHIND PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
BANGALORE-560 002 ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri.T.S.CHANDRAPRABHU, Adv., FOR C/R1;
Shri.G.S.NANJAYYANA MATH, Adv., FOR R2;
Shri.S.ANIL KUMAR, Adv., FOR
M/S.SIVAPPA ASSTS. FOR R3 & R5;
Shri.T.M.NAIK, Adv., FOR R6;
Shri.R.GUNASHEKAR, Adv., FOR R7 & R8;
R4-SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE INTERIM
ORDER DTD.16.1.2015 PASSED BY 20TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE ON IA.NO.5 IN FDP NO.189/2010 AND
ALLOW THE IA.NO.5 FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR SEEKING THE
IMPLEADING AS AN ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT IN FDP NO.189/2010
VIDE ANNEX-G TO THE W.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 27.11.2017, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR, J., PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioner, in this writ petition, has called in question the order dated 16.1.2015 on I.A.No.5 in FDP No.189/2010 4 WP No.5370/2015 on the file of XX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
2. Heard Shri Basavaraj R. Bannur, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri T.S.Chandraprabhu, learned Counsel for the caveator/respondent No.1.
3. In the final decree proceedings, in pursuance of a Judgment and Decree for Partition in O.S.No.3267/1995, the petitioner filed the instant application seeking impleadment on the premise that the second floor portion of Schedule 'A' property was bequeathed in favour of the petitioner under a Will dated 16.3.1993 by S.Veerabhadrappa, father of respondents No.1 to 6. By the order impugned, the Court below has dismissed the said application.
4. Shri Basavaraj R. Bannur, argued in support of the petition, urged a solitary contention that the dismissal of I.A.No.5, by the Court below is unsustainable in law as it 5 WP No.5370/2015 would compel the petitioner to file a suit, which would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing this writ petition.
5. Refuting petitioner's argument, learned Counsel for the respondents Shri T.S.Chandraprabhu, submitted that the petitioner has been making constant but unsuccessful attempts to stake it's claim over the property belonging to the respondents. Amplifying his contention, he submitted that the inter-se lis among the family members stood concluded by the Judgment and Decree in RFA No.312/2004 passed by this Court on 23.9.2010. The petitioner, also challenged the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court in this Court in RFA No.1150/2011. The said appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 19.6.2012, reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek review of the Judgment in RFA No.312/2004. The petitioner, filed a review petition bearing No.202/2014 in RFA No.312/2004. The said petition also stood dismissed on 6 WP No.5370/2015 4.7.2014. The petitioner, on an earlier occasion, had filed a similar application for impleadment in the FDP proceedings on 21.8.2011. The said application also stood dismissed for non-prosecution. Now, the petitioner has come up with the instant application numbered as I.A.No.5, seeking impleadment. He argued that the petitioner, is thus abusing the process of law and accordingly prayed for dismissal of this writ petition.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. The solitary ground urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that, the dismissal of the impleadment application by the Court below leads to multiplicity of proceedings.
7WP No.5370/2015
8. A careful analysis of the facts of this case, leads to an irresistible conclusion that, the petitioner has made untiring, but unsuccessful attempts in staking it's claim over the second floor of the Schedule 'A' property.
9. The suit was filed in the year 1995. The final decree proceedings have been initiated in the year 2010. The petitioner filed a similar application on 21.8.2011 and did not diligently pursue the same, resulting in its dismissal for non- prosecution on 30.10.2003. The petitioner, has now filed the instant I.A.No.5 on 9.4.2014.
10. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.1, is right in his submission that, repeated application for impleadment, in the facts of this case borders on abuse of process of law, particularly, after dismissal RFA No.312/2004 and the Review Petition No.202/2014 in RFA No.312/2004. The respondents have been litigating for their rights for nearly a quarter of a century.
8WP No.5370/2015
11. Petitioner is not diligent in prosecuting its case. In the circumstances, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the Court below. The respondents are being drawn to Court time and again on the very same application and deserve to be compensated.
12. Resultantly, this Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of ` 10,000/- payable to the respondents.
13. In view of dismissal of the writ petition, I.A.No.1/2016 does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE cp*