IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOs.15308-309 OF 2015 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. CHANDRA SHEKAR @ MUTHANNA S/O SRI SHIVANNE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O DEVARUNDA VILLAGE AND POST MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577132.
2. U.N. PRAKASH S/O LATE SRI. U.B. NINGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O CHATRA MAIDANA MUDEGERE TOWN CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT 577132. (By Mr. PRADEEP NAIK K, ADV.) AND:
1. M.S. KRISHNE GOWDA S/O LATE SRI SHESHE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.
2. M.K. SACHIN S/O SRI. M.S. KRISHNE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
3. M.S. SUBBE GOWDA S/O LATE SRI SHESHE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
4. NANDISH S/O M.S. SUBBE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
… PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE R/O HALE MUDIGERE MUDIGERE POST CHICKMAGALUR-577132.
5. MADAN S/O BADRACHARI AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/O NEAR BUS-STAND MUDIGERE TOWN CHICKMAGALURE-577132.
6. CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001.
7. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHICKMAGALURE DISTRICT CHICKMAGALURE-577101.
8. THE THASILDAR MUDIGERE TALUK MUDIGERE CHICKMAGALURE DISTRICT-577132.
9. M.S. KENCHE GOWDA S/O SRI SHESHE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/O HALE MUDIGERE MUDIGERE POST CHICKMAGALURE DISTRICT-577132.
(By Ms. A.R. SHARADAMBA, ADV., FOR R1 – R5 R9 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED NOTICE NOT ORDERED IN R/O R6 – R8) - - -
… RESPONDENTS These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the Annex-F to the W.P. i.e. the order passed by the Hon’ble Civil Judge Junior Division at Mudigere on IA No.10 in O.S.No.32/2013 dated 24.1.2015 (Annex-F) by allowing the W.P. and etc.
These Writ Petitions coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Mr.Pradeep Naik K., learned counsel for the petitioners.
Smt.A.R.Sharadamba, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5.
2. The writ petitions are admitted for hearing.
With consent of the parties, the same are heard finally.
3. In these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the order dated 24.01.2015 passed by the Trial Court by which the application filed by the respondents-plaintiffs under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been allowed and the petitioner have been impleaded as defendants in the suit.
4. Facts giving rise to the filing of the petitions briefly stated are that the respondents have filed a suit seeking the relief of mandatory injunction in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.52 and to hand over the vacant possession. During the pendency the of the suit, it appears that defendent No.4 has sold the suit land to the petitioners. Therefore, the respondents-plaintiffs filed an application seeking impleadment of the petitioners in the suit. The Trial Court with a view to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings as well as in view of the fact that the petitioners have purchased the property from defendant No.4, has permitted their impleadment. In the aforesaid factual background, this petition has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not residing in the suit schedule property. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the order passed by the Trial Court.
6. I have considered the submissions on both the sides and have perused the record. From perusal of the order passed by the Trial Court, it is evident that the Trial Court has recorded a finding that the petitioner has purchased the suit property from defendant No.2 and therefore, the application for impleadment has been allowed. It has further been held that the presence of the petitioners is necessary to avoid multiplicity of the litigation. The question of addition of the parties is one of discretion and not of jurisdiction. The discretion to deal with the prayer for impleadment has been exercised on sound principles of law. Even otherwise it is well settled in law that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be exercised to correct all errors of a judgment of a Court acting within its limitation. It can be exercised where the orders is passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and justice. [See: ‘JAI SINGH AND OTHERS VS. M.C.D. AND OTHERS’, (2010) 9 SCC 385, ‘SHALINI SHYAM SHETTY VS. RAJENDRA SHANKAR PATIL’, (2010) 8 SCC 329 and ‘RADHE SHYAM AND ANOTHER VS.
CHABBI NATH AND OTHERS’, (2015) 5 SCC 423].
In the instant case the impugned order is not passed in violation of fundamental principles of law and justice warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The impugned order passed by the trial court neither suffers from any jurisdictional infirmity nor any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference of this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
I do not find any merit in the petition. The same fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE SS