IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.26323 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) Between:
Goutham Gopal S/o Late Smt. Bharathi S. Huligol, Aged about 38 years, R/at K-2-402, VGN Stafford, Thirumalaivasan Nagar, Thirumullaivoyal, Chennai-600 002.
(By Sri. Kiran Kumar, Advocate) AND:
1. Dr. Radhakrishna, S/o A.M. Mallegowda, Aged about 51 years, R/at 120, VI Main, Jayalakshmipuram, Mysuru-570 012.
2. G.G. Gayathri, D/o Late G.A.G. Acharya, r/at No.2624, 2624/1, Princess Road, V.V. Mohalla, Mysuru-570 002.
... Petitioner ... Respondents This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order on I.A.No.11 dated 18.03.2019 passed in F.D.P.No.30/2011 (F.D.P.No.1/1997) on the file of Court of Small Causes and Senior Civil Judge at Mysuru marked as Annexure-A and etc., This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the court made the following.
ORDER Petitioner being the respondent No. 2(a) in the F.D.P.No.30/2011 (FDP No. 1/1997) filed by the first respondent herein is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 18.03.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A whereby, the learned Judge, Principal Court of Small Causes, Mysuru, having allowed second respondent’s application in IA No.11 filed under Order XXII Rule 10 of CPC, 1908 has permitted him to come on record as the assignee of the original petitioner in the FDP.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that there is no any assignment at all; even if there is one, the same is not valid & effective and therefore, the subject application could not have been favoured and the said respondent could not have been permitted to come on record in the stad of original petitioner in the FDP, as an assignee.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the writ petition papers, this Court declines to interfere in the matter inasmuch as, the impugned order is made in terms of the judgment dated 28.10.2009 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in RFA No. 526/2001; at para no.8(c) of the said judgment, it is stated as under:
“(c) However, it is open to the petitioner in the Final Decree Proceedings to implead Smt. S.G.Acharya as second respondent in the very same petition and then after due notice to her to proceed with the final decree proceedings. AS Dr.Radhakrishnan has purchased the share of Smt.Bharathi, it is open for him also to seek for impleadment either in place of Smt.Bharathi or in addition to Smt.Bharathi and prosecute the final decree proceedings after notice to the first plaintiff in the suit as well as to the decree.”
In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioner, inter alia, to take up the contention that the alleged assignment of the decree has not taken place or is otherwise invalid, if the legally permissible.
All contentions are kept open.
Sd/- JUDGE ag