Smt T R Soubhagya vs Smt Leela R Shetty on 19 June, 2009

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt T R Soubhagya vs Smt Leela R Shetty on 19 June, 2009

Bench: Ravi Malimath

IN THE MGM COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 19*" DAY OF JUNE, 2o09;%'TSSA
BEFORE  %

THE HOWBLE MRJUSTICE RAVI    é    

WRIT PETITION :x:o.11815 C*E.§Q.;2 ..QO8L~--
BETWEEN: A   A   
1 Smt T R SOUBHA.GYA<'"" -  
Wm. B CHANDRb.3.HEK;§xEf.    = 
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS T T *

R/AT 3 M;THOT:5."'ROAD'  S 
K R Exfmigﬁxow     

   %     ...PETITIONER

(By W5 "B P $VV$'."ASS§€iATES, ADVOCATES &
SR1 B. SGPANNA, Aux/SCATE)

Amnf:

'    A 1" 7S'Ti1t.VV%% LEELA HRS?-iETFY

- T  _\fs?{O;"RADHAKRISHNA SHETTY
 , ASEQ ABOUT 48 YEARS
T A "B_YRA_'v'ESHWARA NILAYA"
 537*? CROSS, ASHOKNAGARA
TuMs<uR.

  rxs CHANDRASHEKAR

'S 5/0. NARASIMHAIAH
MAJOR



-2...

"CE-¥ANDRODA'{A" OPPOSITE TO
ADARSHA NURSING HOME
SHARADADEVINAGARA 
TUMKUR. ...RESP0N4DEN_T:T5

(By Sri B L KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)   

THIS wan' PETITION IS FILED OIIDDDIIAAARTICLSS

226 Am 227 OF THE COfi2STT'3"iJTI_ON--._CF,_INDI}!\
PRAYING To QUASH THE DIRDET<IDPAs:s~§D AOONFIA.
FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10. OF C?C,f'.PRO€E'DUREk
DATED 7.8.2003, AT AI\IAII§xuRE+D, 'E;3Y"~.__'THE' 1ST?
ADDITIONAL CIVIL IDuGEAAH{D:a.DN),.AT*Tu:f~1I<uR IN
OS.NO.695/O7 AND;_.PASS:.AN"'0R--DER ALLQWING THE
APPLICATION FOR' .IIAI~II>LEADIr\Ic3..I%THE R2, As 2ND
DEFENQANT IN THE SAID 'OIIIT AS._PRAYED FOR.

P:ET»§L'?3.0¥'i.'C:C3AMI%$.i.G.  FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING II.:T'Df OROUOTHIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE I=OI.I.OI.nII;~IO;g  L A

 Heard utI'uO} 5¢j_g';IAr:rIed counsef for the metitioner.

  to Respondent Nan}. has been

sIspens¢..I by the Order dated 18--3~2009. The co1{Ir.-sé§.,fO§; respondent ND.2 is absent. -3-

3.. The petitieneﬂs application filed underﬂarder 1 Ruie 10 cf cpc came to be rejected 4Vi:.~f':V:ttie'ytitiei Court. Hence, the present petition.

4. The petitioneﬁs 7 performance of the saie_egreen=;e%it daigeci.?i'~iO-é?€30'2'.'Vc' During the pendency of th'e.T:sLsit, the iieippiication to impiead the ee_tei:.dant tees rejected by the trial Csu-rt enﬂthe is neither a nece'Ss{ary Q tier prtj per pe rty'; ' 5}. e impugned order Yam of the considered ﬁriew t'nat'" the reasoning adopted by the _t"rie'i i»«iCo:5:t isieinevustainabie and it requires to be wiith. The impleadment of the 2"" defendant §~':euicj'be«1'~'necessary for the just and finai adjudication A. ef the 'case in view of the specific contentien taken by ""..VVVt'he petitioner with regard to necessity to impiead the iipm-chaser. Either way, the impieadment at the qﬁxw .. 4 ...

purchaser wouid not in any way take away the rights or otherwise of the respondents herein. :"-"er the aforesaid reasons, the 7-8-2008 vide Annexure-D.~~pa4sse§:;V i£§;fI,» fhé;_ Additional Civﬁ Judge

0.S.No.695/2007 is set ésigie. .ag:2;;5§'i_:<:.§ii'(jri' :5: meré petitioner ﬁled under..Qrder"'1*r.Vﬁirrier._1{) c$f'CPCV§is hereby ailowed.

vV&(rit'r~pE§tVﬁ:_§pn" accordingly. Sd/-u Judge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court