IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.38 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) & WRIT PETITION NOS.1809-10 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
B.P.SATHISH, S/O. L.PUTTARAJU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO. 919, 3RD CROSS, AGNIHAMSA ROAD, KUVEMPUNAGARA, MYSURU -570 023.
(BY SRI.MANJEGOWDA D.S., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. S.RAMASWAMY, S/O. LATE R.SUNDAR MURTHY, R/AT NO. 570, COLLEGE ROAD, K.R. MOHALLA, MYSURU-560 037.
2. SALLAUDDIN, S/O. NAVAB JHAN, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT 1, 1ST CROSS, F.C.COLONY, OLD MAHADEVAPURA ROAD, UDAYAGIRI, MYSURU-570 001.
... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.P.VEERABHADRASWAMY, ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 01.12.2016 ON I.A.NO.6 IN O.S.NO.249/2015 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MYSORE (ANNEXURE-F) AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner being the plaintiff in a specific performance suit in O.S.No.249/2015 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 01.12.2016, a copy whereof is at Annexure-F whereby, the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru having favoured application in I.A.No.6 filed under Order I Rule 10 of CPC 1908, has permitted the second respondent to come on record as the second defendant in the suit. After service of notice the respondents having entered appearance through their counsel resist the Writ Petition.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court grants indulgence in the matter because:
a) specific performance suit filed by the petitioner herein is of the year 2015 and it is founded on the agreement to sell date 09.08.2014, the trial having already commenced has gone half a through, and now the second respondent has filed the application under Order I Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of CPC only on 20.04.2016, a copy whereof is at Annexure-D; thus there is a lot of culpable delay brooked and no explanation is offered for the same;
b. in a suit for specific performance, ordinarily the parties to the agreement are necessary parties because of Doctrine of privty of contract, of course, subject to exceptions into which the case of the second respondent does not fit; and c. the application for impleadment lacks all the material particulars such as when the aadhar pathra was executed and what documents of title were deposited and the like; even the photostat copies thereof were also not produced before the Court below or here; this lends some credence to the case of the petitioner that the impleading application is a result of collision between the respondents inter se to defraud or delay the claim of the petitioner.
In the above circumstances, these writ petitions succeed and impugned order is invalidated.
The observations made herein above shall not, in any way influence the trial of and decision making in the suit nor will they come in the way of the second respondent herein working out his grievance else where in accordance with law.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE DS