Karnataka High Court
Sri. Munegowda vs Sri. K V Venkatesh on 31 August, 2012
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
ON THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
W.P No.22426 OF 2012 (GM-CPC)
* AND
W.P.NO.22485 OF 2012(GM-CPC)
BETWEEN
SRI. MUNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O P JAYARAMAIAH
R/O NO.10 (A), BAGALUR VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560 049 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRIYUTHS.S V BHAT & B T GIRISH &
HARISH S, ADVs. )
AND
1. SRI. K V VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH
NO.2, 2ND FLOOR, 4TH MAIN ROAD
NEHRUNAGAR, SHESHADRIPURAM
BANGALORE-560 020
2. SRI MUNIPOOJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
S/O SRI VENKATARAMAPPA
RESIDIDNG AT BAGALUR VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT
3. SMT NAGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
W/O MUNIPOOJAPPA, RESIDIDNG AT BAGALUR VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
*CORRECTED VIDE CHAMBER ORDER DATED 22.09.2012
2
BANGALORE DISTRICT
4. SMT NAGARATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
W/O MUNIPOOJAPPA
RESIDIDNG AT BAGALUR VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT
5. SMT NARAYANAMMA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
D/O MUNIPOOJAPPA
RESIDIDNG AT BAGALUR VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT
6. SMT CHANNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
D/O MUNIPOOJAPPA
RESIDIDNG AT BAGALUR VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT
7. SMT POOJAMMA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
D/O MUNIPOOJAPPA
RESIDIDNG AT BAGALUR VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT
8. SMT MUNIRATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
D/O MUNIPOOJAPPA
RESIDIDNG AT BAGALUR VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT
9. SRI SURESH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
S/O MUNIPOOJAPPA
RESIDIDNG AT BAGALUR VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT
3
10. SRI HARIPRASAD
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
S/O MUNIPOOJAPPA
RESIDIDNG AT BAGALUR VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT
11. MISS HEMAVATHI
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
D/O MUNIPOOJAPPA
RESIDIDNG AT BAGALUR VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT
12. MISS SAKAMMA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
D/O MUNIPOOJAPPA
RESIDIDNG AT BAGALUR VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT
13. SRI RAMACHANDRA
S/O MUNIPOOJAPPA SINCE DEAD
BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS
(a) MASTER DHANUSH
S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS
MOTHER & NEXT FRIEND SMT N RAJANI
RESIDING AT BAGALUR VILLAGE JALA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE
14. SMT N RAJANI
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
W/O LATE RAMACHANDRA
RESIDING AT BAGALUR VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT
15. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.3/2
KHENI BUILDING
4
1ST CROSS, GANDHINAGARA
BANGALORE 560 001 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B V SABARAD, ADV. FOR KIADB,
M/S ACC ASSOCIATES, N.DEVENDRA, ADV., FOR R2-12,
13(B), R14, R13(A) MINOR REPTD. BY R13(B), R1 SD,
KANTHARAJU L & ASSOCIATES, ADV. FOR R1)
THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 21.4.2012 IN O.S. NO.142/2010 PASSED BY THE CIVIL
JUDGE (SR.DN.) DEVANAHALLI PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-M
AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.06.2012 PASSED BY THE
CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.), NELAMANGALA IN O.S.NO.142/2010
AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER ALLOWING THE APPLICATION
FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) OF
CPC AND POSTING THE CASE FOR ENQUIRY ON THE
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XXIII RULE 3 READ WITH
SECTION 151 OF CPC PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-M AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
"B" GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance. During the pendency of the suit, a compromise was entered into and consequently the suit was decreed in terms of the compromise on 03.04.2012.
2. On 10.04.2012, an application was filed by the first respondent under Order I Rule 10 of CPC seeking to come on record as additional defendant. The Trial Court 5 allowed the same by the impugned order. Aggrieved, the present petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order is wholly unsustainable and liable to be set aside. The decree having been passed on 03.04.2012, the court did not have any reason to allow the application. Hence, on this ground alone, the impugned order requires to be set aside.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents are absent. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and examining the impugned order, I am of the considered view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Since the decree has been passed on 03.04.2012, the Trial Court has no jurisdiction for impleading anybody in the suit. Appropriate remedies are available to the aggrieved person. An application seeking to implead himself after the suit was decreed is wholly unknown to law. In the circumstances, the order passed by the Trial Court is wholly without jurisdiction. It is an order which is non-est. In the circumstances, the order dated 08.06.2012 passed 6 in O.S.No.142/2010 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Devanahalli is set aside. Consequently, the application filed by the first respondent is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE VG