Karnataka High Court
Sri. H.P. Suryanarayanachari vs H.M. Ramachandra Shetty on 18 July, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.21334 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. H.P. SURYANARAYANACHARI
S/O LATE PRASANNA CHARI
DEAD BY LRS
1. SMT. SUGUNAMBA
W/O LATE H.P. SURYANARAYANA CHARI
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/O NO. 179/2
HOODI VILALGE
GRAPHITE INDIA ROAD,
BEHIND KAMATH HOTEL
BANGALORE 560 048
2. H.S. MANJU
S/O LATE H.P. SURYANARAYANA CHARI
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/O NO. 179/2
HOODI VILALGE
GRAPHITE INDIA ROAD,
BEHIND KAMATH HOTEL
BANGALORE 560 048
3. H.S. SOMU
S/O LATE H.P. SURYANARAYANA CHARI
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/O NO. 179/2
HOODI VILLAGE
2
GRAPHITE INDIA ROAD,
BEHIND KAMATH HOTEL
BANGALORE 560 048
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.NATARAJU.T, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. H.M. RAMACHANDRA SHETTY
S/O LATE R. MUNISWAMY SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/AT MUNISWAMY SETTY COLONY
NEAR VINAYAKA TEMPLE
HOODI VILLAGE
MAHADEVAPURA POST
BENGALURU 560 048
2. H.M. THYAGARAJA SHETTY
S/O LATE R. MUNISWAMY SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT MUNISWAMY SETTY COLONY
NEAR VINAYAKA TEMPLE
HOODI VILLAGE
MAHADEVAPURA POST
BENGALURU 560 048
3. DWARAKAMAYI HOUSING PROJECTS PVT LTD
HAVING ITS OFFICE A T FLAT NO. 402
SAROJ AQUILA, 'A' BLOCK
SRINIVASAREDDY LAYOUT
MARATHHALLI
BENGALURU 560 037
ALSO AT NO.71, 7TH CROSS
RAJESHREE LAYOUT
MUNEKOLALA, MARTHAHALLI
BENGALURU 560 037
REPTD. BY ITS PARTNER MUSUNURI KISHORE
3
4. H.M. ADINARAYANA SHETTY
S/O LATE R. MUNISWAMY SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEAWRS
R/AT NO. 1037, MASJID ROAD,
HOODI BUS STAND
MAHADEVAPURA POST
BENGALURU 560 048
5. SHASHIKUMAR H.L
S/O LAKSHMINARYANA ASETTY
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT NO.16, 1ST CROSS
HOODI VILLAGE
K.R. PURAM HOBLI,
BENGALURU 560 048
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 24.09.2021 IN
O.S.NO.9222/2014 PASSED BY THE XXXVII ADDL. CITY
CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-38) VIDE ANNEXURE-F
AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the legal representatives of deceased defendant No.1 who are questioning the order dated 24.09.2021 passed by the learned XXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions 4 Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-38) on an impleading application filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.9222/2014, as per Annexure-F permitting respondent Nos.3 and 4 to come on record.
2. Plaintiff/respondent Nos.1 and 2 have instituted a suit for mandatory injunction and perpetual injunction in O.S.No.9222/2014. Now the matter is set down for evidence of plaintiffs. At this juncture, it appears that respondent Nos.3 and 4 claiming to be the joint owners have come up with an impleading application. The said application is not contested by the plaintiffs. However, the present petitioners have objected and resisted the application by filing objections. The learned Trial Judge has allowed the application and there by permitted respondent Nos.3 and 4 to come on record.
5
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Perused the order under challenge.
4. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not at all necessary parties for effective adjudication of controversy between the parties. In a suit seeking relief of mandatory injunction and perpetual injunction, the impleading applicants who claimed to be the brother and nephew respectively want to come on record. Therefore, petitioners contend that proposed respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not at all necessary parties having regard to the nature of relief sought in the present suit.
5. Thought I find some force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, however, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under challenge. If plaintiffs 6 have not objected the impleading application, the present petitioners who claim to be the legal representatives of deceased defendant No.1 cannot object the said application. At the most, respondent Nos.3 and 4 may expand the scope of enquiry which may result in time consumption. But if plaintiffs have not objected the impleading application, this Court is unable to understand as to how the legal representatives of deceased defendant No.1 can question the order under challenge. Even in a suit seeking relief of mandatory injunction, the burden is on the plaintiffs to establish the encroachment and make out a case to show that they are entitled for discretionary relief of mandatory injunction. If the other family members intend to support plaintiffs, this Court would find that no prejudice will be caused to present petitioners who claim to be the legal 7 representatives of deceased defendant No.1. Therefore, no error is made out.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE HDK