IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE Mr. L.NARAYANA SWAMY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.772 OF 2019 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN:
ALLAHABAD BANK A BODY CORPORATE CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKING) ACT, 1970, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT: NO.2 NETAJI SUBASH ROAD KOLKATA-700 001 WITH ONE OF ITS INDUSTRIAL FINANCE BRANCH AT N-603 MANIPAL CENTRE, NO.47, DICKENSON ROAD, BENGALURU-560 042 (PREVIOUS ADDRESS) AND PRESENT ADDRESS:
NO.132, ULSOOR CROSS, ULSOOR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 042.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. ...APPELLANT (By Sri H.R.KATTI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. ARPITHA SHETTY D/O MANOHAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.861, 13TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 034 2. SSJV PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 12TH FLOOR, S.N.TOWERS 25/2, M.G.ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.
3. M/S SSJV PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT TERRACE FLOOR, VAINATHEYA NEW NO.64, 1ST MAIN ST BED, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560 034 4. SRI MANOHAR SHETTY RESIDING AT NO.861 13TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-506 034 5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S DRONAGIRI FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED H NO.8-3-222/7/B/35, 36 D-92 AND 93, FLAT NO.304 SRI RAMANA ENCLAVE MADHURA NAGAR, S.R.NAGAR POST HYDERABAD-500 038 6. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S MANDARAGIRI GREENFIELDS PVT.LTD., FLAT NO.103 DHANUNJAYA NEST, RAJIV NAGAR YOUSUFGUDA, HYDERABAD-500 045 7. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/s.GHATAPRABHA AGRO FARMS PVT. LTD., PLOT NO.392 HMT HILLS, 2ND VENTURE OPP.KNTU COLLEGE KUKKATPALLY, HYDERABAD-500 072. ...RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO: (a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31/01/2019 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.10647/2017 GM- DRT PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTLY (b) TO DISMISS THE IA NO.4709/2015 FILED IN O.A. NO.636/2013 ON THE FILE OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II KARNATAKA, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are, Respondent No.1 herein filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure so as to implead herself in O.A.No.636 of 2013 filed by the Appellant Bank before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, which came to be dismissed. Against which, the first respondent herein preferred writ petition in W.P.No.10647 of 2017 challenging the order passed by DRT on the interlocutory application. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition vide order dated 31.01.2019 and set aside the order passed by the DRT and allowed the application preferred by the first respondent herein and directed her to participate in the proceedings, against which, the appellant is in appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impleading applicant/first respondent herein before the DRT is not a necessary party. He further submitted that the mortgaged properties are the joint family properties and the first respondent herein is also having a share in the said properties. In order to establish her rights over the properties, she had filed a original suit for partition and separate possession in O.S.No.8584 of 2012 before the lower Court.
4. We have perused the records. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the impleading applicant claims to be daughter of the mortgagor and she had filed a suit for partition and separate possession, which is pending adjudication. It is the case of the first respondent herein that incase, the proceedings before the DRT initiated by the Bank is allowed, she would be deprived of her share in the joint family properties and therefore, she is a necessary party. When such being the case, by the impugned order the learned single Judge, has rightly allowed the impleading application. By allowing the impleading application and permitting the applicant t’o come on record and participate in the proceedings itself will not decide the case. The learned single Judge has only permitted the first respondent to participate in the proceedings holding that she is a necessary party. Since the subject matter of the DRT involves joint family properties and the first respondent is the daughter of the mortgagor, we find no ground to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE DH