IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE DAY 27TH OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.34908/2015 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. The Branch Manager The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited Private Banking Department 2nd Floor, 7, M.G. Road Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Branch Manager The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited Private Banking Department No.84, Gandhi Bazar Main Road Basavanagudi Branch Bengaluru – 560 004.
Both petitioners represented by POA Holder Ms. Bhanu Deb Vice President Human Resources – South India The Honkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited. …Petitioners (By Sri. V.J.Achalanand, Advocate for Mrs. Gayathri Balu, Advocate) AND:
1. Mr. Antareep Mahanti S/o Dr. Ambuj Mahanti Aged about 28 years R/at Flat 3087, Tower No.3 Prestige Shantiniketan Whitefield Bengaluru – 560 048.
Also having address at:
1/55, Dover Place, 1st Floor Kolkata – 700 019.
2. The Chairman The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited Incorporated in Hong Kong SAR Having its registered office at:
1st Floor, 52/60, M.G. Road Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. …Respondents (By Sri. B.N. Prithvi Raj, Advocate for R1 R2 served) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the records of the case in O.S.No.1306/2013 pending on the file of the learned XXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-14), Bangalore and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Petitioners being the defendant Nos. 2 & 3 in O.S.No.1306/2013 for a decree of damages filed by the first respondent-plaintiff are laying a challenge to the order dated 10.04.2015 made by the learned trial judge dismissing their application in IA No. II whereby the prayer for deletion of the first defendant in the suit i.e., the second respondent herein from the array of parties wherein is rejected.
2. After service of notice, the first respondent – plaintiff has entered appearance through its counsel who opposes the writ petition. However, the second respondent - Chairman of the Bank has chosen to remain unrepresented despite service.
3. The suit is for a decree of damages (compensation) for the accidental injuries sustained by the first respondent – plaintiff during the course of employment; the first defendant happens to be the Chairman of the Bank under whom other defendants, namely the petitioners whose application for deletion of the first defendant has been rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first defendant in the suit is neither a necessary party nor a proper party to the adjudication of the lis; there is no post/office with the nomenclature “Chairman” although there is a Chief Administrative Officer; the said defendant is miles away from the facts of the case and also the prayer sought for; in these circumstances, the application for deleting him from the cause title ought to have been favoured.
5. Learned counsel for the first respondent – plaintiff per contra submits that it is for the dominant litis to chose his opponents in the proceedings, of course subject to all just exceptions and that the case of the petitioners does not fall into any such exceptions; how petitioner – defendants are legally injured or prejudiced by the presence of first defendant in the suit is ununderstandable; if there is mistake in the description of the first defendant’s the same would be rectified in the Court below in due course; so arguing he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.
6. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned counsel for the first respondent, the other respondent having remained unrepresented despite service of notice. I have perused the writ petition papers.
7. Admittedly, the suit is for a decree of damages for the injury sustained by the respondent – plaintiff allegedly during the course of employment. The first defendant therein happens to be the Chief of the respondent – Bank, regardless of the flaw in his description, which the respondent – plaintiff reserves liberty to rectify in due course.
7. The application for deletion of the first defendant from the array of parties is moved not by the said defendant but by other defendants presumably at his instance. It is ununderstandable how they are aggrieved by his presence regardless of the arguable flaw in the impugned order. Despite alleged misdescription of the first defendant, he has been duly served with the Court process. An order is flawsome per se is a feeble ground for indulgence of the Writ Court in the absence of prejudice to the party is being demonstrated, thereby.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition being devoid of merits stands dismissed.
Costs made easy.
Sd/- JUDGE nms