Karnataka High Court
Sri K Mohan vs Sri Ramakrishnan R on 8 June, 2012
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
ON THE 08TH DAY OF JUNE 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NO.17358/2012(GM-CPC)
BETWEEN :
SRI K MOHAN
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O KANNAPPAN
R/AT NO.501, 6TH MAIN,
13TH CROSS, DOLLARS COLONY,
RMV II STAGE, BANGALORE 94
...PETITIONER
( BY SRI R NATARAJ, ADV.)
AND:
1 SRI RAMAKRISHNAN R
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O LATE SHRI RANGASWAMY
R/AT 'HARI' NO.14,
SEETHAMMA ROAD,
ALWARPET, CHENNAI 600 018
2 SRI MARUTHI RAO T
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O LATE T R RAO
R/AT NO.1/2 RAMAKRUPA
GUBLALA, SUBRAMANYAPURA POST,
BANGALORE 560 006
3 SRTI C L RAVICHANDRAN
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O LATE C S LOGANATHA MUDALIAR
R/AT NO.6, VASU STREET,.
2
KILAPAUK, CHENNAI 600 010
NOW R/AT NO.1, MANIKESHWARI STREET,
KILPAK, CHENNAI
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C.M.POONACHA & LEXPLEXUS FOR C/R1 & 2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER
TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 9.4.2012 PASSED BY THE
XXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE IN
O.S.NO.25345/2011 WHICH IS ENCLOSED AS ANN-H TO THE
WRIT PETITION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The plaintiff filed a suit to declare that the judgment and decree dated 12.2.2008 obtained by the defendant in O.S.No.25345/2011 is null and void and nonest in the eye of law, to declare that second plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule 'B' property, to declare that the Deed of Cancellation dated 15.7.2005 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs, to direct the defendant to put the second plaintiff in possession of 'B' schedule property and other consequent reliefs.
3
2. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC was made by the applicant seeking to implead himself in the impugned order. The same was dismissed. Hence, the present petition.
3. The learned Counsel for petitioner contends that he is a necessary party to the disposal of the suit. The defendant entered into an agreement of Sale dated 12.4.2007 in favour of the applicant to receive the entire sale consideration amount in respect of 'B' schedule property and put him in possession and enjoyment of the same. Further the defendant executed a registered G.P.A on the same day. That an absolute Sale Deed could not be executed even though the entire sale consideration was received, in view of the pendency of the dispute in O.S.No.4086/2007 and the Miscellaneous petition wherein the judgment and decree in the above said suit is challenged.
4. The trial Court, while considering the application held that the applicant being an agent of the principal, when the principal is already on record, the agent is not necessary to be 4 impleaded in the suit. If the rights of the applicant were to be effected, he would have to work out the same in an appropriate suit. Hence, the application was rejected.
5. Heard the learned Counsel for petitioner and the learned Counsel for respondents.
6. One of the reasons to implead himself as party in the suit is that the defendant has not only executed an Agreement of Sale in his favour and put him in possession but has also executed a G.P.A. Therefore, he pleads that it would be necessary that he be heard before the suit is decided. The trial Court while considering the said application held that since the principal was a party, the agent need not be represented. There is no quarrel with the said proposition of law. However, in the instant case, the pleadings made out by the applicant is not that he is only a G.P.A holder of the defendant but also in terms of the Agreement of Sale, he has entered possession and has paid the entire sale consideration. Therefore, it would be proper that the applicant would have atleast a semblance of a right in the 5 said suit. His right and defence would necessarily have to be decided in the trial.
7. The contention of the learned Counsel for respondents is that the respondents strongly disputes the fact of any execution of Sale Deed dated 12.4.2007 as well as the fact that he has been put into possession. Therefore, he pleads that there are no grounds at all to allow the application. It is further contended that the only object of the applicant is to protract the proceedings. It is countered by the petitioner. He has filed a memo stating that he would not raise any further issues to be framed or considered by the trial Court. That he will not seek any further adjournment and proceed with the suit as and when ordered by the trial Court. Further, it is to be noted that this Court by the order dated 12.3.2012 passed in W.P.No.39340/2011 directed the disposal of the suit within a period of four months from the date of the said order, in view of the serious allegations of fraud.
6
8. Under these circumstances and in view of the facts narrated above, as well as the memo filed in the Court today, I do not find any impediment to allow the said petition. For the aforestated reasons, the order dated 9.4.2012 passed by the XXVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S.No.25345/2011 is set aside. The application filed by the applicant is allowed. He is directed to be impleaded as defendant No.2. The trial Court shall proceed with the disposal of the case in accordance with law. The petitioner be bound by his memo.
Sd/-
JUDGE nas.