Karnataka High Court
Mr Boda Suryanarayana Murthy vs Mr Satish Boda on 21 June, 2019
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 52059 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 54113 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. MR BODA SURYANARAYANA MURTHY
S/O LATE SATYANANDAM BODA
AGED 74 YEARS,
2. MR. BODA PRABHAVATHI MURTHY
W/O MR. BODA SURYANARAYANA MURTHY
AGED 66 YEARS,
PETITIONERS NO.1 & 2 ARE
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.123/A, 4TH CROSS,
27TH MAIN, SECTOR -1,
HSR LAYOUT,
BANGALORE - 560 102.
3. MR. RAJESH BODA
S/O MR. BODA SURYANARAYANA MURTHY
AGED 42 YEARS,
4. MRS. NUPUR BODA @ NUPUR KOOLWAL
W/O MR. RAJESH BODA
AGED 40 YEARS,
PETITIONERS NO.3 TO 4 ARE
R/AT SURVEY NO. 496/1203,
NARAIN NIWAS, NEAR CENTRAL WARE HOUSE,
VILLAGE KATHER - 173 213
PO: CHAMBAGHAT
DISTRICT: SOLAN HIMACHAL PRADESH.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. AMIT A MANDGI, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. MR SATISH BODA
S/O MR. BODA SURYANARAYANA MURTHY,
AGED 45 YEARS
2. MRS. HIMA BINDU BODA
W/O MR. SATISH BODA
AGED 35 YEARS,
R/AT 731/A, 11TH B CROSS
26TH MAIN, SECTOR-I,
HSR LAYOUT,
BANGALORE - 560 102.
3. MR. T M ANJANEYALU
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O M MUNIDASAPPA
R/AT DOOR NO. 29,
GAANAVI YELLAPPA LAYOUT,
MANIPAL COUNTY ROAD,
NEAR BALAJI MEDICAL STORES
POST BEGURU,
BANGALORE - 560 068.
4. MR. T M SRINIVASALU
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O M MUNIDASAPPA
R/AT DOOR NO. 29,
GAANAVI YELLAPPA LAYOUT,
MANIPAL COUNTY ROAD,
NEAR BALAJI MEDICAL STORES
POST BEGURU,
BANGALORE - 560 068.
5. N NARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O LATE V R NARASA REDDY,
R/AT 603, 28TH MAIN,
11TH A CROSS, HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR -I,
BANGALORE - 560 102.
6. S BHAGYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
W/O N NARAYANA REDDY,
R/AT NO. 603, 28TH MAIN, 11TH A CROSS
HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR -I
BANGALORE - 560 102.
7. SMT. SAILAJAKODITHYALA
D/O MR. BODASURYANARAYAN MURTHY
3
W/O MR. VIJAY KUMAR KODITHYALA
R/AT FLAT NO. 1303,
MANJEERA MAJESTIC HOUSE
OPPOSITE TO JNTU, KUKATAPALLYA
HYDERABAD - 500 072.
8. M/S KALPATHARU SEEDS & FARMS
A JOINT FAMILY PARTNERSHIP FIRM
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
BODASURYANARAYAN MURTHY, HUF
REPRESENTED BY ITS KARTHA
BODASURYANARAYAN MURTHY
NO.123/A, 4TH CROSS, 27TH MAIN,
HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR -I
BANGALORE - 560 102.
9. M/S KALPATHARU SEEDS & FARMS PVT LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
BODASURYANARAYAN MURTHY
NO.123/A, 4TH CROSS, 27TH MAIN,
HSR LAYOUT SECTOR -I
BANGALORE - 560 102.
10. M/S GLOBAL AGROTECH
REPRESENTED BY SRI RAJESH BODA
S/O BODASURYANARAYANA MURTHY
NO. 123/A, 4TH CROSS, 27TH MAIN,
HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR -I,
BANGALORE - 560 102.
11. M/S KRAFT FOUNDATION
REPRESENTED BY BODASURYANARYAN MURTHY,
FACTORY CUM RESIDENCE AT
SY.NO. 496/1203, NARAINNIWAS
KHASARA NO. 710
NEAR CENTRAL WARE HOUSE
VILLAGE KATHAER - 173 213
POST CHAMBAGHT, DISTRICT SOLAN
HIMACHAL PRADESH
12. M/S GLOBAL GREEN AGRI NOVA
REPRESENTED BY BODAPRABHAVATHI
W/O BODASURYANARAYANA MURTHY
OFFICE CUM RESIDENCE
NO. 123/A, 4TH CROSS, 27TH MAIN,
HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR -I
BANGALORE - 560 102.
13. M/S MAGENTYS AGRI NOVA
REPRESENTED BY SRI RAJESH BODA
4
S/O BODASURYANARAYAN MURTHY
OFFICE CUM, RESIDENCE
NO.123/A, 4TH CROSS, 27TH MAIN,
HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR -I
BANGALORE - 560 102.
14. M/S MAGENTYS AGRI BIOTECH
REPRESENTED BY SRI RAJESH BODA
S/O BODASURYANARAYAN MURTHY
FACTORY AT KHASRA NO. 1754/5
SUBUTHU ROAD, VILLAGE KAILAR
POST SAPROON 173 211
TALUK AND DISTRICT SOLAN
HIMACHAL PRADESH
15. BODASURYANARAYAN MURTHY HUF
REPESENTED BY
SRI BODASURYANARAYAN MURTHY
AS KARTHA
NO. 123/A, 4TH CROSS, 27TH MAIN,
HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR - I
BANGALORE - 560 102.
(NOTE: RESPONENTS NO. 3 TO 15
ARE FORMAL PARTIES HENCE
NOTICE MAY BE DISPENSED)
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VISHNU HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2;
R3 TO 15 DISPENSED WITH)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.08.2018 PASSED BY THE XXIX
ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN
O.S.NO. 53/2014 THEREBY ALLOWING I.A.NO. IV AND V
FILED BY THE R-1 AND 2 HEREIN UNDER ORDER I RULE
102) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908, VIDE
ANNEX-A;
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
5
ORDER
Petitioners being defendants No.1 to 4 in a suit for partition filed by the contesting respondents in O.S.No.53/2014 are invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 20.8.2018 whereby the respondents-plaintiffs' application in I.A.No.5 filed under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, 1908, for their impleadment as defendants 9 to 17 has been favoured. After service of notice, respondents 1 & 2 having entered appearance through their counsel, oppose the writ petitions.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends, that the impugned order suffers from an error apparent on its face inasmuch as the business concerns which allegedly are represented by petitioners and other impleaded respondents are already a part of the suit claim and therefore, their impleadment as defendants to the suit is like putting fifth wheel to the coach; he further submits that the said application is filed by the respondents- plaintiffs only to drag on the suit proceedings so that these petitioners and other defendants are put to harassment. So arguing, he seeks allowing of the writ petitions. 6
3. The learned counsel representing respondents No.1 and 2-plainiffs in the suit resisted the writ petitions contending that the petitioners are estopped from laying challenge to the impugned order inasmuch as they have accepted the cost awarded by the Court below; the impleadment even otherwise also, would not prejudice the petitioners' herein in any way and that the trial Court after exercising its discretion has permitted impleadment which cannot be faulted.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for contesting respondents 1 and 2, notice in respect of other respondents having been dispensed with by this Court vide order dated 14.1.2019. I have perused the petition papers.
5. The suit is admittedly for a decree for partition and separate possession; the pleadings of the plaintiffs refer to joint family business; these businesses, according to the plaintiffs are being run by the petitioners herein; several issues relating to acquisition of the property out of the earnings from the business etc., may figure for consideration during the course of trial; no prejudice even otherwise also would be caused to the petitioners by their 7 impleadment. The petitioners can resist the suit by taking up appropriate pleadings and leading evidence to substantiate their stand. Therefore, the petitioners being proper parties, if not necessary parties, cannot complain against their impleadment, especially after accepting the costs sans any demur.
In the above circumstances, these writ petitions stand dismissed.
Since the suit is of the year 2012, the learned trial Judge is requested to expedite the trial of the suit and to dispose of the same, within an outer limit of 18 months.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE *alb/-.