Karnataka High Court
Shri Madegowda vs Shri Suresh on 4 November, 2010
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 4"' DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA_--GOwD."A-- .
WRIT PETITION NO.19424/2019 (GM--.CRCj'Ljj~_VL » «
BETWEEN:
SHRI MADEGOWDA
S/O LATE CHOWDE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/AT NANDIPURA VILLAGE,
HALAGURU HOBLI I
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT. -- _ 5 ' _
" 1 PETITIONER
(BY SRI GSBHAT, AD'V;,)_1'* 'I '
1 SHRI SURESH R.
S/O BASAVAII~IEGOw'O.A»-- I
AGED ABOUT 35.YEAR=:5
R/A;T KE.MPAIN'AQODDI VILLAGE
~ HA__LAG_URLI_ HOBLI;"I'-*'.--A'LAVALLI TALUK
' «MAEJDYA DISTRICT.
2 I:~;GANG'A_' I I
"S./OSRI' CfHICI<A THAMAIAH
AGED AiisOLii.I" 36 YEARS
R/AT KEMPAINADODDI VILLAGE
HALA'CURU HOBLI
"M/ILAVALLI TALUK
_ YMANDYA DISTRICT,
EDEVARAIU
'T 45/0 LATE KARIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
xi
R/AT KEMPAINADODDI VILLAGE
HALAGURU HOBLI
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT.
PUTTASWAMY
S/O KARIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT KEMPAINADODDI VILLAGE
HALAGURU HOBLI
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT.
R SHIVALINGAIAH
s/0 REVANNA SWMAY» '_ _
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS"-- A ., *
R/AT KEMPAINADODDI v1LLAGr+:j"'
HALAGURU HOBLI
MALAVALLI TAl_«i*_«lj_<'*-_ 1;
MANDYA DIS'{T_RI(§13"._. . *
K BASAVARA3U._
S/O PL_.i--TTAA_SWAMYi:;:A. _ __
AGED ABOUTT39 YEARS .
R/AT t>:,EM.P'AL..I:\:A:jQsDI"v,1LLA'GE
HALAG'LIRU--HOBLI*__*._ ~
MALAVALLLI T,ALu's: "
MANDYA DI";1TRIcVTV;.
S/:0 .__SHIVAAV MA..D£>EG ow DA
AGED k3.E5O_U"T._.38 YEARS
' ,R/AT i»:_EMPAINADODDI VILLAGE
H,_ALAGU'E='§U Hjoaa
'--MAAAvA'LLI' =TA1=LUi<
MA;\zD\fA~ DISTRICT.
K s SIDQELINGEGOWDA
nsfo SIDDEGOWDA
«_ AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
QR/AT KEMPAINADODDI VILLAGE
HALAGURU HOBLI
FIVEALAVALLI TALUK
MAN DYA DISTRICT,
9 REVAN NA
S/O REVAN NA SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT KEMPAINADODDI VILLAGE
HALAGURU HOBLI
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT.
10 RAJENDRA, S/O KALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT NANDIPURA VILLAGE
HALAGURU HOBLI
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT.
1: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MANDYA,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAI<A._.....
:2 TAHASILDAR,
MALAVALLI TALUK, V I
MALAVALLI.
RESPe,5NDE'NTS;_..1I A-.ND.I:1'2..'AMEA:DED AS PER
ORDER DATED 4;I'0_.E20:0«,._ ~ '
v = * " RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SH.AKEEL"'AHMED; AID.Vf'I~'OR R1 TO R10; __SRI zAHEE'REE.AHMED,I..AOA FOR R11 8: R12) .0 "RETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 C~.F"1"'r4.E "CQ'NS'TITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTI~RE-.0-RECORDS .FROM THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE .(3R, DIVISION) & IMFC AT MALAVALLI IN RESPECT OF SUIT IN O.S.'--~..__NO,49/2.610 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; QUASH THE ORDER PASSED E45/"'.TH'E COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE 'I«Ifj§"3.R;DIVISIOt'»3)1' & JMFC, AT MALAVALLI IN I.A.NO.3 IN O,S..NO.=A..-.9/2010 DATED 36.2010 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A. PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN I --'3f'GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
1996(1) i<ar.L.J 313 has passed the order, which in the facts and circumstances of the case, is wholly irrational and.'i'i-le'g.a'l'..,4 and hence, interference is called for.
3. Sri Shakeel Ahmed, learned co'un.s_e'l-,appearing'forH":
the respondents 1 to 10, on the otherA:'h__and_nconlt§;._;ldeq1~. the defendants in the suit/respon'dv,e:n'ts 831,12.' did not file the written statement' andl'"'did.l1oVEs.pArotect'"theE public interest, in that, the suit _,a_:'V:C3_'9.\fe_~rnment land, reserved for contends that, the claim of the? t'h;eV.s'uit property is false and there lprovperty in favour of the plaintiff andz'the«'.suit-- reserved for the beneficial enjoyment of the' .vVi'i--.|a_cj*ers';':lV the application filed being ,_mVe«ri.tori--oLi's,:,;,the. triV'al"""co'urt is justified in passing the "
Ahmed, learned Additional Government "--«l'.j'i;Ad__i/ocate plvaced on record a copy of the written statement 1"--V.xa*nTd'n$tVa,te'r'nent of objections filed to the suit on 30.10.2010 a_/e' _, ..
6 and submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of_...the case, the impugned order may not call for interference.-f'-V,.f"--«.V"'-
5. I have perused the record. In view thje.
contentions, the point for considerationllis,"ill/fieth'er:_"ilh_e.Vufrialln"1 court is justified in allowing LA No.3?
6. The trial court thoug"h~rl.:._:was alt)-prlaisledllfioflll the decision in the case of s..u'p«ra), rnade an attempt to distinguish the that, the applicants are not nlorkers only claiming their rights landllthe matter can be decided _
7. The suit'is".:fo.r:""--reélilef of permanent injunction aygainstxggthes. respondents: in respect of plaint schedule _v"'7ihe4A"plaintiff has not sought relief against the app'lica'lnts :n";~l.,A It is wel|~sett|ed position of law that, the Dl"aint.i':ff dominus litis. Unless the third "_:'V""v.;5a.rties,/_app'i'i'cants are necessary parties for deciding the ifs 'b'ef'o'rVe"'t*iie court, there cannot be any order compelling the T .ipI"a*intiff to implead third parties to the suit. Keeping in view it 9' u the relief prayed in the suit, the presence of the applicants in LA No.3 in the suit is not necessary. The trial court without recording any finding as to whether the applican.ts_:"-are, necessary and proper parties to the suit, has allowed LA No.3. The impugned ord_e.r,_i_s the decision in the case ofTHIMMEGOWDA'~{su:orafi. }?ol'l~oirvin'g.7thé::.i_' ratio of said decision, the impug'nVe'd-.,.orde'rv. has ne,:c'e~s.$a.ri,l,y.5to% be quashed.
In the result, the writ' 'petit-ioft.Vsta'nd_s,:a'ilowed and the impugned order starid's..,qua:_shed.:V:, It to 10 to assist the defendants VV'ih_§ti'ie 11 & 12, to contest the suit in..accordan'ceiwith Vliayv. Since respondents 11 & 12 the-."iivr»itten..stat'err§"e%it arid objection to the I.A, the trial cousrtshaiii ..rVa..i_se4Vut:hei.~issues and try 8: dispose off the suit on meril.;__and- iriaccordance with law.
., No cos-ts.
sali 'fudge