Karnataka High Court
Raju S/O Kashinath Jadav vs Smt. Girijabai on 26 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5416
WP No. 201865 of 2023
C/W WP No. 201207 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.201865 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.201207 OF 2022(GM-CPC)
IN W.P.NO.201865/2023:
BETWEEN:
1. DEEPAK
S/O NINGANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O S. S. COMPLEX, BLDEA ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
2. BHIMANAGOUDA
S/O SHANKARGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O PLOT NO.1, BANASHANKARI LAYOUT,
NEAR RAJKUMAR LAYOUT, ATHANI ROAD,
Digitally signed VIJAYPURA-586101.
by
MARKONAHALLI
RAMU PRIYA
3. SAHEBGOUDA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF S/O SHANKARGOUDA PATIL,
KARNATAKA AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O PLOT NO.1, BANASHANKARI LAYOUT,
NEAR RAJKUMAR LAYOUT, ATHANI ROAD,
VIJAYKUMAR-586101.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. GIRIJABAI
W/O CHANDRAKANT JADHAV,
AGE: 60 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD WORK,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5416
WP No. 201865 of 2023
C/W WP No. 201207 of 2022
R/O BAGALKOT-587101.
2. SRI NIVARATI
S/O BALABA JADHAV,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S.,
2A. SMT. SUSHILA W/O NIVARATTI JADHAV,
AGE: 89 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O UPALI BURZ, VIJAYAPURA-586101.
3. SRI SURYAKANT S/O NIVARATTI JADHAV,
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED POLICE,
R/O PANDHARPUR, MAHARASHTRA STATE-413304.
4. SMT. YAMUNA W/O VIJAY GATE,
AGE: 56 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O SOLAPUR (NIRMITI GALLI, SOLAPUR)
MAHARASHTRA STATE-413001.
5. SMT. MINAXI W/O SHAILESH JACHAK,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O BARAMATI, MAHARASHTRA STATE-413001.
6. SRI RAJU S/O KASHINATH JADHAV,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O SHIVAJI PETH, VIJAYAPURA-586101.
7. SRI RAMESH S/O SUSHAN JADAV,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
BIRADAR @ PATIL,
R/O SHIVAJI PETH, VIJAYPURA-586101.
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI SHIVAKUMAR KALLOOR, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 30.06.2023 PASSED IN R.A. NO.157/2018 BY THE II
ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT VIJAYAPURA, AT ANNEXURE-
F, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5416
WP No. 201865 of 2023
C/W WP No. 201207 of 2022
IN W.P.NO.201207/2022:
BETWEEN:
RAJU S/O KASHINATH JADAV,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O SHIVAJIPETH, VIJAYAPURA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR KALLOOR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. GIRIJABAI
W/O CHANDRAKANT JADAV,
AGE: 65 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O RANGARAO B. CHAVAR,
NEAR LAVANGAR MATH,
(KILLA), BAGALKOT,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587101.
2. NIVRATTI S/O BALABAJADHAV
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S
2A. SMT. SUSHILA W/O NIVRATTI JADHAAV,
AGE: 93 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O VIJAYAPURA
(NR. UPALI BURZ, VIJAYAPURA)-586101.
2B. SURYAKANT S/O NIVRATTI JADHAVA,
AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: RETD. POLICE,
R/O PANDHARPUR, MAHARASTRA-413304.
2C. SMT. YAMUNA W/O VIJAYA GHATE,
AGE: 69 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE/HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O SOLAPUR (NIRMITI GALLI SOLAPUR)
MAHARASTRA-413101.
2D. SMT. MINAXI W/O SHAILESH JACHAK,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: H.H.WORK,
R/O BARAMATTI (MAHARASHTRA-413102)
3. RAMESH S/O SUSHAN JADHAV
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5416
WP No. 201865 of 2023
C/W WP No. 201207 of 2022
R/O VIJAYAPURA-586101
(SHIVAJI PETH, VIJAYAPURA)
4. SRI ANVAR S/O IBRAHIM BEPARI,
AGE: 53 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O VIJAYAPUR-586101.
(MATHAPATI GALLI)
VIJAYAPURA)
5. GIRIMALLAPPA
S/O YAMANAPPA KORAWAR,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.,
5A. SMT. MAHADEVI
W/O GIRIMALLAPPA KORAWAR,
AGE: 63 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O VIJAYAPURA, BANAGAR GALLI,
JORAPUR PETH,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
5B. MALLIKARJUN
S/O GIRIMALLAPPA KORAWAR,
AGE: 43 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O VIJAYAPURA,
BANAGAR GALLI,
JORAPUR PETH,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
5C. SMT. BORAMMA
D/O GIRIMALLAPPA KORAWAR,
AGE: 43 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O VIJAYAPURA,
BANAGAR GALLI,
JORAPUR PETH,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
5D. SMT. MALLAMMA
D/O GIRIMALLAPPA KORAWAR,
AGE: 28 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O VIJAYAPURA,
BANAGAR GALLI,
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5416
WP No. 201865 of 2023
C/W WP No. 201207 of 2022
JORAPUR PETH,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
6. SAYYAD TAJAMULLHUSSAIN
S/O SAYYADMAHIBOOB PASHA,
AGE: 53 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O VIJAYAPURA,
BADIKAMAN,
NAWAB MASJID,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
7. SHIVAJI
S/O YASHVANT KADAM,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S.,
7A. RAJASHREE W/O SHIVAJI KADAM,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O VIJAYAPURA, UPALI BURZ,
CHANDABAWADI ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
7B. BHAGYASHREE D/O SHIVAJI KADAM,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O VIJAYAPURA, UPALI BURZ,
CHANDABAWADI ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
7C. DHANSHREE D/O SHIVAJI KADAM,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O VIJAYAPURA, UPALI BURZ,
CHANDABAWADI ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
7D. GANESH S/O SHIVAJI KADAM,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O VIJAYAPURA, UPALI BURZ,
CHANDABAWADI ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
7E. LAXMI D/O SHIVAJI KADAM,
AGE: 31 YEARS,
OCC; BUSINESS,
R/O VIJAYAPURA, UPALI BURZ,
CHANDABAWADI ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5416
WP No. 201865 of 2023
C/W WP No. 201207 of 2022
7F. DINESH S/O SHIVAJI KADAM,
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC; BUSINESS,
R/O VIJAYAPURA,
UPALI BURZ,
CHANDABAWADI ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
8. MAHAVEER S/O SHANKARLAL MEHTA,
AGE: 53 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS,
R/O RAJGURU COMPLEX,
MAHAVEER ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
9. JAYAKUMAR
S/O GIRIDHARILAL MEHTA,
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O RAJGURU COMPLEX,
MAHAVEER ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
10. SHABANA W/O MEHBOOB ATHANI,
AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS AND HOUSEHOLD,
R/O KARMIKKUTEER
KSRTC COLONY,
GANG BAVADI,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
11. GANGADHAR S/O RAMANGOUDA HIROLLI,
AGE: 54 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O VIJAYAPURA-586101.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-G DATED 10.02.2022 ALLOWING
I.A. NO:XXV ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, VIJAYAPUR
IN R.A.NO.157/2018 AND DISMISS THE I.A.NO.XXV FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO:9.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5416
WP No. 201865 of 2023
C/W WP No. 201207 of 2022
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ) W.P. No.201865/2023:
The petitioners have challenged an order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayapur in R.A.No.157/2018 by which, an application filed by them under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC was rejected.
2. (i) The petitioners contend that a suit in O.S.No.272/2000 was filed for declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit properties by virtue of a sale deed dated 21.12.1998 executed by Mr. Chandrakant Jadhav and for consequential perpetual injunction. The said suit was decreed after contest on 02.11.2018.
(ii) The defendant No.1 filed R.A.No.157/2018 challenging the aforesaid judgment and decree. They contended that during the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 sold the land in Sy.No.689/1+2+3A measuring 6 acres 29 guntas in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 4 in terms of a sale -8- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5416 WP No. 201865 of 2023 C/W WP No. 201207 of 2022 deed dated 11.07.2003. Defendant No.4 sold the land purchased by him to the petitioners in terms of a sale deed dated 17.11.2008.
(iii) The petitioners thereafter got the land converted for non-agricultural purposes in terms of an official memorandum issued by the Deputy Commission bearing file No.RB/LNA/1/CR-65/2011-12. Thereafter, they approached Vijayapur Development Authority for approval of the layout and which was accordingly approved on 18.03.2017. The petitioners have laid 24 plots which were sold under different sale deeds to various persons and the purchasers were placed in possession of the plots.
(iv) Petitioner No.2 was one of such purchaser, while petitioner No.3 had purchased plot No.13. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 had already constructed residential building over the same with prior permission from the local authority. They contended that they were served with a notice by the Tahsildar in RRT No.249/2022 and were required to appear on 24.11.2022. The petitioners contend that they came to know about the filing of the suit in O.S.No.272/2000 and its disposal as well as the -9- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5416 WP No. 201865 of 2023 C/W WP No. 201207 of 2022 pendency of the appeal filed by defendant No.1. They contended that their vendor namely, defendant No.4 in the suit was placed ex parte. Hence, they filed an application (I.A.No.27) before the Appellate Court in R.A.No.157/2018 to come on record as respondents.
3. (i) The application was contested by the legal representatives of the plaintiff Nos.1 and 3, who contended that the sale in favour of the petitioners was during the pendency of the suit and therefore, the petitioners did not have any independent right to come on record.
(ii) The First Appellate Court in terms of the impugned order rejected the application on the ground that an order of interim injunction was in force in O.S.No.272/2000 restraining defendant No.1 from alienating the suit property. However, defendant No.1 had sold it to defendant No.4 and defendant No.4 had brought about certain change in status of the suit property which was not binding upon the plaintiffs. It held that the suit was filed on 11.09.2000 and was disposed on 02.11.2018 while the petitioners had purchased the property
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5416 WP No. 201865 of 2023 C/W WP No. 201207 of 2022 on 11.07.2003 which was therefore during the pendency of the suit.
(iii) It held that the vendor of the petitioners had appeared before the Trial Court through an advocate. It held that defendant No.1 who had sold the property to defendant No.4 was herself contesting the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.272/2000 and therefore, the interest of the petitioners was sufficiently protected. It thus held that if defendant No.1 succeeded in the appeal, the petitioners would also get the benefit and that they would step into the shoes of defendant No.1. Consequently, it rejected the application in terms of the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the said order, this petition is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the applicants were bona fide purchasers of the sites formed in the one of the properties involved in the suit. He submits that the applicants had lawfully purchased the property and thereafter, had obtained appropriate permission from the concerned authorities and after obtaining a plan had constructed a building thereon. He therefore submits that the
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5416 WP No. 201865 of 2023 C/W WP No. 201207 of 2022 applicants were unaware of the litigation that was pending between the parties. He further submits that the applicants are all assignees of the interest of defendant No.1 and therefore as defendant No.1 had filed R.A.No.157/2018, the applicants were entitled to come on record and establish their claim in the appeal itself. He submits that this would only avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the sale in favour of the applicants was during the pendency of the suit and therefore, the same is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. He further contends that the vendor's vendor of the applicants is already pursuing the appeal before the First Appellate Court and therefore, the interest of the applicants is sufficiently protected. He contends that if the applicants are permitted to come on record, this would protract the litigation and therefore prays that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court be confirmed. W.P. NO.201207 OF 2022:
6. The plaintiff No.4 in O.S.No.272/2000 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Vijayapur has filed this
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5416 WP No. 201865 of 2023 C/W WP No. 201207 of 2022 writ petition challenging an order dated 10.02.2022, passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Vijayapur in R.A.No.157/2018 by which, an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC was allowed.
7. The suit in O.S.No.272/2000 was filed for a declaration of title and consequential relief of perpetual injunction in respect of an agricultural land bearing Sy.No.689/1+2+3A measuring 6 acres 29 guntas situate at Mahalbagayat, Vijayapur and a house property. The said suit after contest was decreed and defendant No.1 in the suit filed R.A.No.157/2018 before the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayapur.
8. During the pendency of the appeal, an application was filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC by a purchaser of a portion of RS No.689/1+2+3A from Smt. Mahadevi and Sri Mallikarjun in terms of a sale deed dated 22.03.2011. The said Smt.Mahadevi and Sri Mallikarjun were the wife and son of Girimalappa Korwar who had purchased a portion of Sy.No.689/1+2+3A from defendant No.1 in the suit in terms of a sale deed dated 11.07.2003. He contended that he was a
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5416 WP No. 201865 of 2023 C/W WP No. 201207 of 2022 bona fide purchaser having lawful rights and valid title over the property. He therefore, contended that he was entitled to be heard in the proceedings. This application was opposed by the plaintiff in the suit. They contended that the applicant had purchased the property during the pendency of the suit and therefore, he had no right to come on record and contest the appeal on merits. It was contended that the decree that was passed against defendant No.1 was equally binding upon the purchaser. It is also contended that the interest of the applicant was sufficiently protected as the defendant No.1 was pursued R.A.No.157/2018 against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.272/2000.
9. When the appeal was listed for consideration, learned counsel for defendant No.1 submitted that he had no objection to allow the application. Consequently, the Court allowed the application in terms of the order dated 10.02.2022 and directed defendant No.1 to implead the applicant in R.A.No.157/2018. Being aggrieved by the said order, plaintiff No.4 in O.S.No.272/2000 has filed this writ petition.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5416 WP No. 201865 of 2023 C/W WP No. 201207 of 2022
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff No.4 submits that the purchase was during the pendency of the suit and therefore, the applicant had no interest to come on record and is bound by the decree that was passed against defendant No.1. He further contends that allowing the applicant to come on record would result in protracting the proceedings and therefore, prays that the impugned order be set aside. He further contends that a similar application was considered by the Appellate Court and the same was rejected in terms of the order dated 30.06.2023 and therefore prays that the impugned order be set at naught.
11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.
12. It is not in dispute that defendant No.1 had sold the land bearing Sy.No.689/1+2+3A in favour of 1) Anwar,
2) Girimallappa and 3) Syed Tajmulla Hussaini in terms of a sale deed dated 11.07.2003. The said Anwar, Girimallappa and Syed Tajmulla Hussaini were arrayed as defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 in O.S.No.272/2000. The petitioners in
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5416 WP No. 201865 of 2023 C/W WP No. 201207 of 2022 W.P.No.201865/2023 had purchased the portion of the aforesaid land from Syed Tajmulla Hussaini in terms of a sale deed dated 11.07.2008. Similarly the applicant in W.P.No.201207/2022 had purchased a portion of the property from Girimallappa. It is not in dispute that both the sale deeds were during the pendency of the suit filed in O.S.No.272/2000. Consequently, the purchasers were bound by the decree that was passed in O.S.No.272/2000. It is necessary to note that the defendant No.1 had challenged the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.272/2000 in R.A.No.157/2018. The purchasers from defendant Nos.4 and 2 have filed applications to come on record as assignees of the interest. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC which reads as follows:
"10. Procedure in case of assignment before final order in suit.--(1) In other cases of an assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may, by leave of the Court, be continued by or against the person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved.
(2) The attachment of a decree pending an appeal therefrom shall be deemed to be an interest entitling the
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5416 WP No. 201865 of 2023 C/W WP No. 201207 of 2022 person who procured such attachment to the benefit of sub-rule (1)."
13. It is therefore evident that the applicants who intended to come on record in R.A.No.157/2018 were assignees of the interest in the suit property and therefore, they were entitled to defend their title by contesting the appeal on merits. It is also relevant to note that the purchasers being pendente lite purchasers were to be included in the decree that may be passed in R.A. 157/2018. It is also relevant to note that the proceedings in R.A.No.157/2018 were nothing but continuation of the proceedings in O.S.No.272/2000 and therefore the powers of the Trial Court were exercisable by the Appellate Court to fully and finally adjudicate the dispute between the parties. The question whether a purchaser pendente lite is entitled to come on record as an assignee came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Thomson Press (India) Limited Vs. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited and Others reported in 2013 (5) SCC 397, wherein it held that "53. There is, therefore, little room for any doubt that the transfer of the suit property pendete lite is not
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5416 WP No. 201865 of 2023 C/W WP No. 201207 of 2022 void ab initio and that the purchaser of any such property takes the bargain subject to the rights of the plaintiff in the pending suit. Although the above decisions do not deal with a fact situation where the sale deed is executed in breach of an injunction issued by a competent Court, we do not see any reason why the breach of any such injunction should render the transfer whether by way of an absolute sale or otherwise ineffective. The party committing the breach may doubtless incur the liability to be punished for the breach committed by it but the sale by itself may remain valid as between the parties to the transaction subject only to any directions which the competent Court may issue in the suit against the vendor.
54. The third dimension which arises for consideration is about the right of a transferee pendete lite to seek addition as a party defendant to the suit under Order I Rule 10 CPC. I have no hesitation in concurring with the view that no one other than parties to an agreement to sell is a necessary and proper party to a suit. The decisions of this Court have elaborated that aspect sufficiently making any further elucidation unnecessary. The High Court has understood and applied the legal propositions correctly while dismissing the application of the appellant under Order I Rule 10 CPC. What must all the same be addressed is whether the prayer made by the appellant could be allowed under Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC, which is as under:
"10. Procedure in case of assignment before final order in suit. - (1) In other cases of an
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5416 WP No. 201865 of 2023 C/W WP No. 201207 of 2022 assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may, by leave of the court, be continued by or against the person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved.
(2) The attachment of a decree pending an appeal therefrom shall be deemed to be an interest entitling the person who procured such attachment to the benefit of sub-rule (1).
"A simple reading of the above provision would show that in cases of assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may, by leave of the Court, be continued by or against the person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved. What has troubled us is whether independent of Order I Rule 10 CPC the prayer for addition made by the appellant could be considered in the light of the above provisions and, if so, whether the appellant could be added as a party-defendant to the suit. Our answer is in the affirmative. It is true that the application which the appellant made was only under Order I Rule 10 CPC but the enabling provision of Order XXII Rule 10 CPC could always be invoked if the fact situation so demanded. It was in any case not urged by counsel for the respondents that Order XXII Rule 10 could not be called in aid with a view to justifying addition of the appellant as a party-defendant. Such being the position all that is required to be examined is whether a transferee pendete lite could in a suit for specific performance be added as a party-defendant and, if so, on what terms."
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5416 WP No. 201865 of 2023 C/W WP No. 201207 of 2022
14. Therefore, the purchasers pendente lite of the portion of the suit property were entitled to come on record in R.A.No.157/2018 and request the Court to re-appreciate the facts and arrive at a just conclusion as provided under Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC.
15. As a matter of fact, in respect of the very same case, certain other applicants had filed an application to come on record which was allowed by the Appellate Court and was questioned before this Court in Writ Petition No.202480/2021 and Writ Petition No.202478/2021. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in terms of the order dated 08.07.2022, held that the purchasers pendente lite, were entitled to come on record and pursue the appeal. Therefore, the applicants who had purchased the properties or portions of the properties were entitled to come on record as assignees of the right, title and interest of defendant No.1 in the suit and they were entitled to defend their title by requesting the Appellate Court to exercise jurisdiction under Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC to pass a judgment that warrants in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the above, the petition filed in writ petition No.201865/2023 merits consideration, while writ petition
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5416 WP No. 201865 of 2023 C/W WP No. 201207 of 2022 No.201207/2022 does not merit consideration. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition No.201865/2023 is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.06.2023 passed in R.A.No.157/2018, by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayapur is set aside and application filed in I.A.No.27 is allowed and the applicants are permitted to come on record as respondents in R.A.No.157/2018.
(ii) Writ Petition No.201207/2022 is rejected.
(iii) Since the parties are litigating since the year 2000, the First Appellate Court is requested to dispose off the appeal as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iv) It is made clear that the impleading applicants shall not be entitled to file any additional documents or additional evidence but shall establish their claim by
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5416 WP No. 201865 of 2023 C/W WP No. 201207 of 2022 requesting the Appellate Court to consider the evidence on record.
Sd/-
(R.NATARAJ) JUDGE RSP CT:SI List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46