IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION NO.50777/2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
AXIS BANK LTD.
CORPORATE BANKING BRANCH 2ND FLOOR, EXPRESS BUILDING NO.1 QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR. SURESH PAI (G.P.A. HOLDER) ... PETITIONER (BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA SENIOR ADV.FOR KUM./SMT.NAMRATA KOLAR ADV.) AND:
1. LOTUS SHOPPING CENTRES PRIVATE LIMITED REGISTERED OFFICE AT DOOR NO. 15-8-441/50 SHOP NO.46, 1ST FLOOR YENEPOYA MALL, KADRI ROAD MANGALORE-575 003 REPRESENTED BY THE INSOLVENCY RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL MR. SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA HAVING ADDRESS AT DREAMS COMPLEX, 4C-1605, LBS MARG NEAR RAILWAY STATION, BHANDUP WEST MUMBAI- 400 078.
2. LOTUS THREE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED IN REPUBLIC OF MAURITIUS C/O MAURI TRUST CONSULTING MANAGEMENT LTD., 210 ST. JAMES COURT RUE ST. DENISPORT LOUIS MAURITIUS REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTORS.
3. KAKOSI LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED IN CYPRUS EVAGORU & MENANDROU 1, FROSIA HOUSE, 4TH FLOOR FLAT/ OFFICE 401, P.C. 1066 NICOSIA, CYPRUS REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTORS 4. MR. CHANDANA VARGHESE CORPORATE BANKING BRANCH 2ND FLOOR, EXPRESS BUILDING NO.1 QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P.P. HEGDE ADV. FOR R2 AND R3 R1 SERVED BUT UN REPRESENTED NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.08.2018 OF THE X ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE [CCH-26] IN O.S. No.5553/2017 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D. AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The first defendant-petitioner filed the present writ petition against the order dated 14.08.2018 on I.A. No.2 in O.S. No.5553/2017 on the file of the X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru along with application for amendment filed by impleading applicants.
2. The first respondent-plaintiff filed suit against present petitioner-first defendant and others for damages raising various contentions. In the meanwhile, the matter was transferred to Commercial Court and again came back to the Civil Court. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Trial Court, an application came to be filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. for impleadment of proposed applicants (respondent Nos.2 & 3). The Trial Court by the order dated 14.08.2018 allowed the application only recording that both counsel are present. Since plaintiff’s counsel submitted no objection to I.A. No.2, the application is allowed and permitted the applicants to come on record as defendants Nos.3 and 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.
3. Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the amendment order passed by the Trial Court without providing opportunity to the petitioner to file its objections and without assigning reasons which is not sustainable. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition.
4. Sri P.P. Hegde, learned counsel for impleading applicants submits that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to file its objections but they have not filed the same. Hence he sought to dismiss the petition.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is undisputed fact that the present respondents No.2 and 3 have filed application for impleading during the pendency of the suit between the first respondent-plaintiff and the present petitioner and other defendants for damages. The trial court proceeded to allow the application only on the ground that plaintiff’s counsel submitted no objections to I.A.No.2 and accordingly it is allowed. Absolutely no reasons are assigned for impleadment, as to whether applicants are proper and necessary parties to the proceedings for the suit filed for damages. In the absence of any reasons assigned for impleadment, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Hence the impugned order passed by the Court below is liable to be quashed.
6. In view of the above, writ petition is allowed.
Impugned order dated 14.08.2018 on I.A.No.2 made in O.S.No.5553/2017 is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the trial Court for re-consideration of I.A.2 after hearing both the parties to pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law as expeditiously.
All contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties are left open.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE HR