Karnataka High Court
Vasant S/O. Lingo Kulkarni vs Sri Sai Constructions on 25 September, 2014
Equivalent citations: 2015 (1) AKR 152
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA
WRIT PETITION Nos.83745-83748/2013 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN
1. SRI.VASANT S/O.LINGO KULKARNI
AGE: 84 YEARS, OCC: RETD. NAVAL OFFICER
R/O. PLOT NO. 128, NEW BADAMI NAGAR
KESHWAPUR, HUBLI-580 023
2. SMT.SHANKRAMMA W/O.VEERESH KUBASAD
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. H NO. 12, OLD BADAMI NAGAR
KESHWAPUR, HUBLI-580 023
3. SRI.BALU S/O.DAMODAR DHARWADKAR
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: RETD. PERSON
R/O. PLOT NO. 136, OLD BADAMI NAGAR
KESHWAPUR, HUBLI-580 023
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.RAVI S. BALIKAI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SRI SAI CONSTRUCTIONS
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM
REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
SRI RAVINDRA S/O. GANAPATI REVANKAR
:2:
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O. MADHAV ESTATE
KESHWAPUR, HUBLI-580 023
2. HUBLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
LAMINTON ROAD, HUBLI-580 020
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAMESH B. KALE ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;
SRI.G.I.GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL
CIVIL JUDGE, HUBLI IN O.S.NO.260/2013 AND ON
PERSUAL OF THE SAME BE PLESED TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 12/08/2013, PASSED ON I.A.NOs.3 TO 6
REJECTING THE SAME VIDE ANNEXURE-S THEREBY NOT
IMPLEADING THE PETITIONERS IN THE SAID SUIT
OS.NO.260/2013.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING ON
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In these writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have called in question the order dated 12.08.2013 passed by the trial :3: Court in O.S.No.260/2013 on I.A.Nos.3 to 5 vide Annexure-S.
2. By the impugned order at Annexure-S, the trial Court has rejected the I.A.Nos.3 to 5 filed by the petitioners to implead them as parties to O.S.No.260/2013.
3. Aggrieved by that, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.
4. Briefly stated the facts are:
The first respondent has filed suit in O.S.No.260/2013 for permanent injunction. The second respondent has filed its written statement resisting the suit. At the stage of evidence, the petitioners have filed I.A.Nos.3, 4 and 5 to implead them as parties to the suit. The trial Court by its order dated 12.08.2013 has rejected I.A.Nos.3 to 5 filed by the petitioners. Aggrieved by that, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.:4:
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the suit property is reserved as Civic Amenity Site. The first respondent is trying to put up construction. It was resisted by the petitioners by complaining to the second respondent-Corporation. The second respondent-Corporation cancelled the licence. It was challenged in W.P.No.66469/2011. This Court directed the Corporation to issue notice to the first respondent and pass orders after hearing the first respondent. The matter is now pending before the Regional Commissioner. He also submitted that the petitioners had approached this Court in W.P.No.81910-912/2013 and this Court directed the second respondent to pass orders within two weeks after giving opportunity to the first respondent. The first respondent has filed suit in O.S.No.260/2013 for permanent injunction against the second respondent. The petitioners are not parties in the suit. Therefore, the petitioners have filed :5: I.A.Nos.3, 4 and 5 to implead them as parties to the suit. The trial Court by its order dated 12.08.2013 has rejected the application. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that at the instance of the petitioners action was taken and their presence is required for effective adjudication of the matter. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.
6. As against this, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the impugned order does not call for interference. He also submitted that the petitioners are neither necessary nor proper parties to the proceedings. Their presence is not required for effective adjudication of the matter. They are strangers to the suit. The trial Court taking into consideration that the petitioners have no right or interest in the property and their presence is not required for effective adjudication of the matter has rightly rejected the application. Therefore, the impugned order :6: does not call for interference. He also placed reliance on the decision reported in 2001(2) Kar.L.J. 262.
7. The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the petitioners should have been impleaded as parties to the suit.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
9. The point that arise for my consideration is:
Whether the impugned order calls for interference?
10. It is relevant to note, the suit in O.S.No.260/2013 has been filed by the first respondent for permanent injunction. According to the petitioners, the suit property is a Civic Amenity Site. The petitioners are agitating the matter since the year 2011. At their instance the licence was cancelled on 08.09.2011. It was challenged by the first respondent in W.P.No.66469/2011. This Court directed to issue notice to the first respondent and pass :7: orders after hearing the first respondent. It is stated, the matter is now pending before the Regional Commissioner. In the meanwhile, the first respondent has filed suit in O.S.No.260/2013 against the second respondent for permanent injunction. In the said suit, the petitioners have filed I.A.Nos.3, 4 and 5 to implead them as parties to the suit. The trial Court by its order dated 12.08.2013 has rejected the application stating that the applicants are neither necessary nor proper parties and there is a delay in filing the I.As. The petitioners cannot be joined as parties to the proceedings. The trial Court has failed to consider that the petitioners are agitating the matter since from the year 2011. At their instance, the licence was cancelled. The second respondent has failed to take action against the first respondent. The petitioners have approached this Court and this Court has directed the second respondent to pass orders within two weeks after giving opportunity to the first respondent. The petitioners are not strangers to the :8: litigation. In this case, this Court by its order dated 25.10.2013 has directed the first respondent to stop construction forthwith on site No. CTS 874/B/13 reserved as Civic Amenity Site until further orders. This indicates that the petitioners are continuously agitating the matter. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners are strangers to the litigation or their presence is required for effective adjudication of matter. In that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. The petitioners need to be impleaded as parties to the suit. Therefore, the trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application.
11. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned order passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.260/2013 on I.A.Nos.3, 4 and 5 is hereby set aside. I.A.Nos.3, 4 and 5 are allowed and the petitioners are permitted to come on record as prayed. The trial Court is directed to implead the petitioners as parties to the suit. :9: This Court by its order dated 25.10.2013 has directed the first respondent or anybody claiming under it to stop construction forth with on site No. CTS 874/B/13 reserved as Civic Amenity Site until further orders. This order shall continue till the disposal of the suit.
Sd/-
JUDGE Vnp*