Karnataka High Court
Prakash Iyer vs H R Ramesh on 2 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:4747
WP No. 22716 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
WRIT PETITION NO. 22716 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
PRAKASH IYER,
S/O K. SHANKARNARAYAN,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT NO.34, EAGLE RITZ,
16 .K.M. BEGURU - KOPPA
ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 068
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI: VIJAYA .N., ARADHYA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by PAVITHRA N 1. H.R. RAMESH,
Location: high S/O LATE H.S. RANGASWAMY,
court of
karnataka AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/AT 443/1, RAMASWAMY CIRCLE,
MYSURU - 570 004
2. M/S. JANAPADA SEVA TRUST,
MELUKOTE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
BY ITS SECRETARY SANTHOSH,
KOULAGI, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 431
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: N. JAGADISH BALIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
CONSTITUTION INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE, ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT PANDAVAPURA IN
O.S.315/2004 ON IA 6 FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC DTD.
08.09.2021 ALLOWING THE SAID APPLICATION VIDE ANNX-L AND
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SAID APPLICATION AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:4747
WP No. 22716 of 2021
ORDER
Defendant No.2 in O.S.No.315/2004 is impugning the order dated 08.09.2021 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Pandavapura (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court' for brevity), allowing IA No.VI filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of CPC and directing to delete his name in the cause title as he is not necessary and proper party to the suit.
2. Heard Smt. Vijaya N. Aradhya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. Jagadish Baliga, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Perused the materials on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had purchased the suit property under the registered sale deed dated 16.11.2007. Since respondent No.2 being defendant No.1 before the trial Court is the tenant, the petitioner got issued notice calling upon him to pay the rent. Respondent No.2 issued reply stating about pendency of the suit before the trial Court. The petitioner had filed the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC seeking his impleadment. Said application came to be allowed. The -3- NC: 2024:KHC:4747 WP No. 22716 of 2021 plaintiff has filed review application before the trial Court. Same came to be dismissed. Allowing of impleading application by the trial Court was challenged by respondent No.1 before this Court by filing W.P.No.4945/2020. Same also came to be dismissed vide order dated 10.03.2020.
4. Learned counsel further submitted that after defendants filing the written statement and lead evidence before the trial Court, respondent No.1 being plaintiff, again filed IA No.VI seeking to delete the name of the petitioner as he is not either necessary or proper party. Said application was allowed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. Learned counsel submitted that when the trial Court considering the contention of both the parties, allowed the application and permitted the petitioner to be impleaded as defendant No.2 which was confirmed by this Court in W.P.No.4945/2020, the trial Court could not have allowed IA No.VI and ordered for deleting the name of the petitioner. The trial Court committed an error in passing such order. -4-
NC: 2024:KHC:4747 WP No. 22716 of 2021 Therefore, she prays for allowing the petition by setting aside the impugned order.
6. Per contra learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposing the petition submitted that respondent No.1 filed the suit for possession in O.S.No.315/2004 against respondent No.2. However, the petitioner got impleaded himself by filing an application. Learned counsel submitted that since the suit pending before the trial Court is only for possession, the petitioner was not a necessary party.
7. Learned counsel further contended that placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kanaklatha Das & Ors. V. Nabakumari Das & Ors.1, the trial Court allowed the application IA No.VI. The trial Court has discussed in detail about the contentions of the parties. As the petitioner has claimed ownership over the property and since it is a rival claim, he is not a necessary party. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
1 2018 CCR 2447 -5- NC: 2024:KHC:4747 WP No. 22716 of 2021
8. The undisputed facts of the case are that respondent No.1 filed the suit for eviction in O.S.No.315/2015 against respondent No.2 who is the tenant. It is the contention of the petitioner that he has purchased the property under the registered sale deed dated 16.11.2007 from its owner. Thereafter, he came to know about pendency of the present suit and got himself impleaded as necessary party. It is not in dispute that even though the said order was challenged before this Court by filing W.P.No.4945/2020, same came to be dismissed. It is thereafter IA No.VI was filed under Section 151 of CPC seeking to delete the name of defendant No.1. Virtually it is a second round of litigation contending that defendant No.2 is not necessary party to the suit.
9. When the earlier order impleading the petitioner as defendant No.2 has reached finality, the trial Court could not have once again considered IA No.VI to delete the name of defendant No.2 as he is not necessary or proper party. The facts and circumstances of the case considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court is entirely different from the facts and circumstances of the present case. There is absolutely no reason assigned by the trial Court to ignore the earlier order -6- NC: 2024:KHC:4747 WP No. 22716 of 2021 passed on the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC and the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.4945/2020, where impleadment of the petitioner as defendant No.2 was confirmed. Under such circumstances, I do not find any merit in the contention raised by respondent No.1 so also I do not find any justification for the trial Court to pass the impugned order. Hence, the same calls for interference by this Court.
10. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned order dated 08.09.2021 passed in O.S.No.315/2004 by the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Pandavapura, allowing IA No.VI, is set aside. Consequently, IA No.VI filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 under Section 151 of CPC is dismissed.
iii. Both parties are directed to co-operate with the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the suit. -7-
NC: 2024:KHC:4747 WP No. 22716 of 2021 Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with at the risk of the petitioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE PN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39