IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT WRIT PETITION No.25628 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. GRETTA BAPTIST W/O IGNATIUS MICHAEL LOBO AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 2. MR IGNATIUS MICHAEL LOBO H/O SMT GREETA BAPTIST AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT LOBO COMPOUND URWA STORES ASHOKNAGAR POST MANGALORE DK-575006 …PETITIONERS (By SRI AJAY PRABHU .M. FOR SRI SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATES) AND 1. LAWRENCE WILFRED BAPTIST S/O. LATE HENRY BAPTIST AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.1-15-1006/1, SUPARI BAGH, NEAR AXIS BANK URWASTORES, MANGALORE – 575 006.
2. MRS. DUCLINE PEREIRA W/O. JOSEPH SYLVESTER PEREIRA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS R/AT RITA KUTEERA URWA, CHILIMBI, MANGALORE – 575 006. … RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.05.2019 PASSED ON I.A.NO.4 IN O.S.NO.444 OF 2015 ON THE FILE OF 2ND ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANGALORE AS PER ANNEXURE – A AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioners being now impleaded as defendant Nos.2 and 3 in respondent/plaintiff’s suit in O.S.No.444/2015 is calling in question the order whereby the trial court having allowed the application for impleadment filed by the plaintiff and has permitted him to implead them as defendant Nos.2 & 3.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit which originally was between the respondents inter se; though the Commissioner’s Report states that there is an encroachment by the petitioners, the same having been objected to by respondent No.1/plaintiff, the version of the Commissioner’s report stands discounted and therefore absolutely there is no material on which the impugned order can stand; he further submits that the petitioners have been impleaded only for the purpose of harassment; therefore, the application of respondent No.1/plaintiff lacking in merits and bona fide could not have been favoured.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and I have perused the petition papers.
4. The petitioners herein have been impleaded on the application of respondent No.1/plaintiff filed under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, 1908; the allegation that the petitioners having encroached the suit property or part thereof, are a necessary parties, stands consideration worthy, in view of contents of the Commissioner’s Report, the objection thereto by respondent No.1/plaintiff notwithstanding; the impleadment of the petitioners as proper parties and necessary parties, could not be faltered, in view of the decision of the Apex Court said in the case of RAZIA BEGUM VS. SAHEBADI ANWAR BEGUM AND OTHERS AIR 1958 SC 886. The contention that the application is calculated to harass the petitioners is difficult to accept at this stage.
In view of the above, the writ petition lacking in merits stands rejected in limine.
Observation herein above made shall not influence the trial and decision making in the suit.
KTY Sd/- JUDGE