Karnataka High Court
Smt Amalapooh Mary vs Sri V Ravindra on 26 September, 2013
Author: H.G.Ramesh
Bench: H.G.Ramesh
-1-
WP.No.45837/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION No.45837 OF 2012 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN :
1. SMT AMALAPOOH MARY
W/O LATE SRI. P.M. VENKATSWAMY
@ BERNARD VENKATASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
2. SMT. CECILIA SHEELA
W/O. SRI D JAGADEESAN
& D/O LATE SRI P.M. VENKATSWAMY
@ BERNARD VENKATASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.52,
DHARMAR STREET, NEW TOWN,
VANIYAMBADI-635 752.
3. SRI. CECIL PINTO
S/O LATE SRI P.M. VENKATSWAMY
@ BERNARD VENKATASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT I.Q. EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE,
A1-HUMRA BUILDING, M-1-FLOOR,
DUBAI, U.A.E
P.O. BOX-81355.
REPRESENTED BY HIS
GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER SMT. AMALAPOOH MARY ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SHRMATH A. FOR
SRI MANJUANTH N., ADVOCATES)
-2-
WP.No.45837/2012
AND:
1. SRI V RAVINDRA
AGE NOT KNOWN
RESIDING AT NO.3
CHINNAMMA GARDEN
OPP. AYYAPPA TEMPLE
SUBBAIAHANAPALYA
BANGALORE-560 033
2. LATE P.M. VENKATASWAMY
S/O LATE PILLAIAH
SINCE DECEASED BY LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES
2(i) CHINAMMA
W/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/AT NO.3, CHINAMMA GARDEN
OPP. AYAPPA TEMPLE
SUBBAIAHANAPALYA
BANGALORE-33.
2(ii) NAGARATHNA
D/O. VENKATASWAMY
W/O KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT NO.139, JANAKIRAM LAYOUTS
LINGARAJAPURAM SLUM
BANGALORE-560 033.
2(iii) ANUSUYA, W/O. MUNIYAPPA
D/O VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT NO.156, 5TH CROSS
KAVALBYRASANDRA
R.T. NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 032.
2(iv) VASANTHA
D/O VENKATASWAMY
W/O LATE JAYANNA
SINCE DECEASED BY LRs.,
-3-
WP.No.45837/2012
2(iv)(a) VENUGOPALA
S/O. JAYANNA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
2(iv)(b) CHANDRA
S/O. LATE JAYANNA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
BOTH IV(a) AND (b)
RESIDING AT No.3
CHINNAMMA GARDEN
OPP. AYAPPA TEMPLE
SUBBAIAHNAPALYA
BANGALORE-33
2(v) SARASWATHI
D/O VENKATASWAMY
W/O. GANESH
AGED 47 YEARS
NO. 156, 5TH CROSS
KAVALBYRASANDRA, R.T. NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 032.
2(vi) JAYALAKSHMI
W/O K.P VENKATARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
No.1650, 6TH MAIN, VINAYAKNAGAR
BEHIND COD QUARTERS
KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN
BANGALORE - 560 060
3. SMT. RANI
W/O LATE R. PALANI
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.2, 3RD CROSS
R.P NAGAR, NEAR KANNADA
TAMIL GOVT. SCHOOL,
JAYABHARATHINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 033 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G. PAPI REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2(III) TO R2(VI) AND R3 ARE SERVED AND
UNREPRESENTED)
-4-
WP.No.45837/2012
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.10.2012 PASSED IN O.S.
No.872/1994 BY THE I ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-2) ON I.A. XIV VIZ., ANNEXURE 'L'
OF THE PETITION.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
Heard. This writ petition by defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 is directed against an interlocutory order dated 05.10.2012, wherein the trial Court has rejected I.A. No.14 filed by the petitioners to implead one Smt. Rani as defendant No.5.
2. Earlier, the application-I.A.No.10 filed by the aforesaid Smt.Rani to implead her as an additional defendant was dismissed by the trial Court. It is relevant to refer para No.11 of the impugned order, which reads as under:
"11. Considering the above fact and the fact that the Order passed by this Court on I.A.10 was not challenged, it was contended that the present application is not maintainable to bring the proposed -5- WP.No.45837/2012 defendant as party to the suit. As mentioned earlier, I.A. No.10 is filed by the present proposed defendant No.5 under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC., which was rejected by the Court on 4.6.2008. That apart, considering that earlier application filed was rejected and that there is no extenuating circumstances shown subsequent therefrom and also the fact that the earlier application I.A. No.10 was rejected and that there is no mention about the sale agreement for sale of the suit schedule property by the defendant in his written statement, I am of the view that the present application to implead the proposed defendant is not maintainable."
3. I find no legal infirmity in the above reasoning of the trial Court to warrant interference with the impugned order in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.
Petition dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE sma