IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.23858 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
M/S.GURUKIRAN ENTERPRISES, NO.57, CHANDRIKA COMPLEX, MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 027. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, MR.DHIRAJ HEGDE.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI.MAHABALESHWAR CHITRIGEMATH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MR.CHENNAKESHAVA REDDY, S/O LATE APPALLAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.735, 4TH CROSS, SYNDICATE BANK ROAD, NEAR NAGENDRA TEMPLE, HAL, KONENA AGRAHARA, BANGALORE – 560 013.
2. M/S. NATIONAL TOBACCO COMPANY INDIA LIMITED, MARTON BUILDING 1 & 2, OLD COURT CORNER, KOLKOTTA – 42.
3. SMT. RASHIDABI, D/O SYED RAHMANSAB, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.85, SPONSOR ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BANGALORE – 560 005.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.T.SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 01.04.2019 ALLOWING I.A.NO.16/2016, IN O.S.NO.4651/2011 PASSED BY HON’BLE XX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION AT BANGALORE AT ANNEXURE – E AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEAIRNG THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner being the second defendant in a suit for declaration & possession in O.S. No.4651/2011 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 01.04.2019, a copy whereof at Annexure-E whereby, the learned XX Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru having favoured the contesting respondent’s application in I.A. No.16/2017 filed under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908 has permitted the said respondent to gain entry to the suit array. After service of notice, respondent No.3 having entered caveat through the counsel resists the writ petition.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter agreeing with the reasoning part of the impugned order; admittedly, the contesting caveator-respondent even today was in the possession of the subject property.
3. The suit itself is for a decree of declaration & possession, the possession then being with the contesting respondent-caveator, who allegedly has sold the property pendente-lite to another person. The contention of the petitioner that once a person alienates the property pendente- lite, such a person looses the litigable interest appears to be too farfetched a view inasmuch as the alienation pendente- lite are always subject to the doctrine of lis pendens enacted in Section 52 of the Transfer of the Property Act, 1882; if the alienation is rendered dysfunctional because of the decree later passed, the vendor is liable to reimburse the sale price to the vendee. Therefore, the litigable interest of the person who alienates the property pendente-lite continues till after the termination of the suit proceedings.
4. In the above circumstances, writ petition being devoid of merits is rejected. However, learned trial Judge is requested to try and dispose of the suit within an outer limit of nine months. All contentions of the parties having been kept open.
Costs made easy.
Sd/- JUDGE MBM