Karnataka High Court
Smt Nagamani @ Sowmya vs Sri S N Pradeep on 18 July, 2018
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO.55132 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. NAGAMANI @ SOWMYA
W/O S.N.PRADEEP
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.121
1ST FLOOR, MEG LAY-OUT
DOORVANINAGAR, A NARAYANAPURA
BANGLAORE-560 016. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.M.MURALI, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI. S.N.PRADEEP
S/O SRI.S.NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
NOW R/AT D BLOCK
DOOR NO.1, GROUND FLOOR
KRISHNAREDDY BUILDING
KAGGADASAPURA MAIN ROAD
MARUTHINAGAR, NEW THIPPASNADRA POST
BANGALORE-560 075.
2. SRI. NANJAPPA
S/O LATE S. ASHWATHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
2
R/AT CHOLAMANDALAM POST
HINDUPUR TALUK,
ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT
ANDRAPRADESH-515 201. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAKASH M.PATIL, ADV. FOR R1
SRI. PRADEEP K. GAONKAR,ADV. FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS IN O.S.NO.83/2015 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED I
ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,
BANGALURU AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DTD:16.11.2017 PASSED ON I.A.NO.10 FILED UNDER
ORDER I RULE 10 OF CPC MADE IN O.S.NO.83/2015 BY
THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 16-11-2017 passed on I.A.No.10 in O.S.No.83/2015 on the file of the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore. 3
2. Petitioner is the wife; first respondent is the husband; and Second respondent is the father of the first respondent. The first respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.83/2015 for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, her men and relatives from obstructing or interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of daily life of the plaintiff and for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant, her men and relatives from coming near the Office and residential house of the plaintiff as shown in the cause title. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment to amend the cause title so as to show different residential address from the one originally filed before the Court. The said amendment application came to be allowed and the residential address was changed from No.121, MEG Layout, Doorvani Nagar, 'A' Narayanapura, Bangalore-560 016 to that of D-Block, Door No.1, Ground Floor, Krishna Reddy Building, Kaggadasapura Main Road, Maruthi Nagar, New Thippasandra Post, Bangalore-75. Thereafter, the second respondent herein who 4 is the father of the first respondent filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC to get himself impleaded as plaintiff No.2 in the above suit. The said application is allowed by the trial Court by its order dated 16-11-2007, which is impugned in the present writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsels for the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2. Perused the writ papers.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court could not have allowed the application filed by the second respondent herein to come on record as plaintiff No.2. The suit filed by the first respondent is for permanent injunction against the petitioner herein restraining the defendant, her men and relatives from obstructing or interfering with the enjoyment of daily life of the plaintiff and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, her men and relatives from coming near the office and residential house of the plaintiff. No schedule is stated in the plaint. It is further submitted that it is the dispute between the 5 husband and wife and the father of the husband could not have come on record as the plaintiff No.2 who is wholly unnecessary to the proceedings before the Family Court.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the first respondent submits that the amendment with regard to address is allowed by the court below. Subsequently he has shifted to the address that is shown in the amended plaint i.e., to D-Block, Door No.1, Ground Floor, Krishna Reddy Building, Kaggadasapura Main Road, Maruthi Nagar, New Thippasandra Post, Bangalore-560 075, where his father resides. He further submits, since he resides in that address, the father of the first respondent has rightly come on record as plaintiff No.2. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2/father submits that, in his absence, the petitioner herein broke open the house and she is residing in the house. When a complaint was made to the Police they advised them that it is to be sorted out in the Court as the matter is pending before the Court. He further submits that as the petitioner has occupied his house, it has become necessary to 6 get himself impleaded as plaintiff No.2. He submits that the Court has rightly allowed the application based on the documents produced before the Court.
6. The suit is filed by the husband against his wife who is the petitioner herein seeking for a particular relief of permanent injunction not to interfere in his enjoyment of daily life and not to come near the Office and residential house of the plaintiff. It is the prayer which plaintiff has sought in his personal capacity. No schedule is mentioned in the suit. It is only not to interfere in his daily life and not to obstruct his function at his Office and also residential house. In a dispute between the husband and wife, application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC to come on record as second respondent by the father who is the second respondent herein, in my opinion is not maintainable. It is not his allegation that the petitioner/wife of his son is interfering in his personal life as contended by the son in his suit. His grievance is entirely different from the grievance of his son in the suit in O.S.No.83/2015. For the grievance of Respondent 7 No.2/father, he cannot seek impleadment as plaintiff No.2 in the suit filed by his son which is for a limited purpose. It is the case of the second respondent-father that the petitioner, on 7th December, 2014, the petitioner along with her family members and few strangers visited his house and stood in front of his house, picked up huge quarrel for no fault of him. It is further stated that the petitioner has occupied his house and he is made to reside in his native place. The second respondent has to avail separate remedy and he cannot seek any remedy in the suit filed by his son, wherein the son has filed the suit with a specific prayer for injunction. The trial Court, in its order has observed that the plaintiff is a necessary and proper party for adjudication of the matter and the dispute is relating to residential house. In my view, the said observation is erroneous as the suit is filed by his son and it does not relate to the dispute of the residential house. The trial Court erred in allowing the application filed by the second respondent herein under Order I Rule 10 of CPC. In my view, in the facts of the case on hand in a dispute between 8 the husband and wife, the father/second respondent is neither necessary nor proper party. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 16-11-2017 is set aside.
Sd/-
JUDGE mpk/-* CT:SK