Karnataka High Court
Vdb Celadon Apartment Owners vs Sri. Praveen Prakash on 28 July, 2017
Author: Jayant Patel
Bench: Jayant Patel
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
WRIT PETITION NO.31675/2017 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
VDB CELADON APARTMENT OWNERS
ASSOCIATION (REGD)
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO 23/3, 23/4, 26/1
SHIVANAHALLI, JAKKUR MAIN ROAD,
YELAHANKA, BANGALORE - 560064
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.MUJTABA H, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. PRAVEEN PRAKASH
SON OF SRI B.L.VISHWAKARMA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
RESIDING AT A - 204,
VDB CELADON HOUSING COMPLEX,
SHIVANAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI,
YELAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE - 560064
2. SRI SELVARAJ ARUMUGHAM
SON OF LATE ARUMUGHAM K N
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
RESIDING AT C- 403
2
VDB CELADON HOUSING COMPLEX,
SHIVANAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI,
YELAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE - 560064
3. SRI NARASIMHA SWAMY
SON OF LATE VEDALA SIMHADRI
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
RESIDING AT A - 401
VDB CELADON HOUSING COMPLEX,
SHIVANAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI,
YELAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE - 560064
4. SRI NARESH PRASAD P
SON OF SRI A KUMARAN NAIR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT A - 403
VDB CELADON HOUSING COMPLEX,
SHIVANAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI,
YELAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE - 560064
5. SRI VIVEK NAIR
SON OF SRI G C NAIR
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESIDING AT A - 102
VDB CELADON HOUSING COMPLEX,
SHIVANAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI,
YELAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE - 560064
6. SRI G SURIYA NARAYAN
SON OF LATE R GOPALA KRISHNA IYER
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
RESIDING AT B - 404
VDB CELADON HOUSING COMPLEX,
SHIVANAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI,
YELAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE - 560064
3
7. M/S VALUE DESIGNBUILD PRIVATE LIMITED
NO 14, 3RD MAIN, 3RD PHASE,
2ND STAGE, DOMLUR ,
BANGALORE - 560071
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
MR. KOSHY VARGHESE
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DTD.16.2.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XV
ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE ON
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION I.A.NO.10 FILED BY THE
PLAINTIFFS [R-1 TO 6] IN O.S.NO.7911/2015 VIDE
ANNEX-A AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The present petition is directed against the order dated 16.02.2017 passed by the lower Court whereby the petitioner is impleaded as the party under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
4
2. I have heard Mr.Mujtaba H., learned Counsel for the petitioner.
3. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner was that the petitioner is not concerned with the builder-original defendant. It was submitted that the petitioner is an Association formed of various members who is looking after the maintenance facility but the builder-original defendant has not given accounts and the other fund, if any, of all members for the purpose of maintenance. It was also submitted that no relief is prayed against the petitioner in the plaint by the original plaintiffs and therefore the petitioner ought not to have been impleaded as the party. Hence, this Court may interfere.
4. As such, it is undisputed position that the main subject of the suit is pertaining to common facility to be enjoyed by all the residents of the Apartment and the 5 same was also required to be originally maintained by the builder. It is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is not looking after the maintenance facility of the Apartment.
5. Under the circumstances, the subject can be said as related to maintenance facility and as the petitioner is looking after the maintenance facility of all members, the presence of the petitioner is required for adjudication and further if any order is passed for maintenance facility or continuation of the maintenance facility in favour of the original plaintiffs or otherwise, the petitioner is also necessary party to the proceeding, since the maintenance facilities are now subsequently taken over and are now being looked after by the petitioner. It is a different matter that the petitioner may have defence available in law in the main suit proceeding, but thereby it cannot be said that the 6 petitioner is third party to the litigation which is not concerned with the subject matter of the suit.
6. If the aforesaid aspect is considered read with the reasons recorded by the learned Trial Judge it cannot be said that there is any error of jurisdiction committed which may call for interference in exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution.
7. Hence no case is made out for interference. Therefore the petition is dismissed.
8. It is observed that rights and contentions of both the sides in the civil suit shall remain open to be considered in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE JT/-