Ramzan Abdul Goundi vs The T.P.C. Sadalaga on 14 August, 2014

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Ramzan Abdul Goundi vs The T.P.C. Sadalaga on 14 August, 2014

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

                             1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2014

                         BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY

       WRIT PETITION No.100065/2014 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN

RAMZAN ABDUL GOUNDI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & CONTRACTOR,
R/O. SADALAGA-591 239, TQ: ATHANI,
DIST: BELGAUM.                             ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. M G NAGANURI, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    THE T.P.C. SADALAGA,
      THROUGH ITS CHIEF OFFICER,
      SADALAGA-591 329,
      TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM.

2.    THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
      WAYUVYA KARNATAKA RASTE SARIGE
      SANSTHE (NWKRTC), CHIKODI-591 201,
      DIST: BELGAUM.                       ... RESPONDENTS

(RESPONDENTS SERVED)

      THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER ON IA
NO.V DATED 17.12.2013 PASSED BY THE FIRST ADDITIONAL
CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, CHIKODI, IN O.S.NO.248/2011 PRODUCED
AT ANNEXURE-E.

      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                 2




                          ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner while the respondents though served are absent and unrepresented.

2. The order dated 17.12.2013 of the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkodi, allowing IA-V under Order I Rule 10(2), filed by the 2nd respondent, in O.S.No.248/2011, suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record.

3. Petitioner instituted O.S.No.248/2011 arraigning the 1st respondent as party defendant for permanent injunction. Allegation in the suit was that the petitioner when allotted a site formed by the 1st respondent in a layout interfered with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The dominus litis being the plaintiff having decided that his cause of action is only against the 1st respondent instituted the suit. When no allegation was made against the 2nd respondent herein, it appears the 2nd respondent filed IA-V under Order I Rule 3 10 (2) CPC to be impleaded as 2nd defendant and contest the suit, interalia, contending that it was the owner of 3 acres 20 guntas out of 6 acres 19 guntas in R.S.No.787A/1 and that the Government of Karnataka had granted it to establish a depot and in terms of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum Corporation, paid Rs.50,061/- by challan of the State Bank of India on 23.09.2000. In addition, it was stated that the revenue records were corrected and mutation entry recorded in its name. It was alleged that the 1st respondent having no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property, part of the land granted, by forming a layout, had auctioned the same to various persons which was illegal. It is in these circumstances, the 2nd respondent sought to be impleaded as party defendant to the suit. That application was opposed by filing statement of objections of the plaintiff denying the claims and stating that the applicant had no locus standi to be impleaded as 4 party defendant and that the remedy would lie elsewhere and not in the suit.

4. The trial court in a cavalier manner by a cryptic order not noticing the pleadings of the parties and the fact that the application under Order I Rule 10 (2) CPC was not maintainable since the impleading applicant had no lis with the plaintiff but did have one with 1st defendant and therefore was not a necessary and proper party to the proceeding, allowed IA-V. In my considered opinion, the order impugned is not sustainable in law and is accordingly quashed. IA-V under Order I Rule 10 (2) CPC filed by the 2nd respondent is rejected.

SD/-

JUDGE Jm/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court