IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.34959 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
M/S. K.M. AKBAR TRUST No.94/3, INFANTRY ROAD BANGALORE 560001 REP. BY ITS’ MANAGING TRUSTEE MS. NILOUFER AKBAR D/O LATE K.M. AKBAR, MAJOR (BY SRI. JANARDHANA G, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI. A. RAHMAN GUL MOHAMED ALIAS GUL MOHAMED AKBAR S/O LATE K.M. AKBAR AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT. No.94, INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU-560001.
2. M/S. SHAKTHI ENTERPRISES A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM No.94/3-1 INFANTRY ROAD BANGALORE-560001.
ALSO HAVING OFFICE AT No.1356, 12TH MAIN HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE-560038 REP. BY ITS’ PARTNERS.
(i) SMT. VASANTHI K. ALVA W/O SRI P.K. ALVA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS.
(ii) SRI. KIRAN ALVA S/O SANTHA ALVA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS ... PETITIONER (ii) SMT. VRINDA K. ALVA W/O KIRAN ALVA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
(iv) SRI. VIJAY KRISHNA K. ALVA S/O P.K. ALVA AGED 55 YEARS.
3. M/S. C-3, COM.CEL.CITI GROUND FLOOR No.94/3-1 INFANTRY ROAD BANGALORE-56001.
ALSO AT: FF-1, 4TH FLOOR, TAJ REGENCY No.40, BENSON TOWN CROSS ROAD 2ND CROSS, BENSON TOWN BANGALORE-560046 No.4, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. GHANI HANEEF S/O LATE ABDUL GHANI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
4. M/S. ACME SALES GROUND FLOOR No.94/3-1, INFANTRY ROAD BANGALORE-560001 ALSO AT: GROUND FLOOR No.14, INFANTRY ROAD BLUE CROSS CHAMBERS BANGALORE-560001 REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. RANJAN KUMAR BOHRA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
5. M/S. MILLENIUM POINT GROUND FLOOR No.94/3-I, INFANTRY ROAD BANGALORE-560001 REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI MOHAMMED SHANI S/O MOHAMMED AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
6. M/S. FRIDGE HOUSE GROUND FLOOR No.94/3-I, INFANTRY ROAD BANGALORE-560001 REP. BY ONE OF ITS PARTNER SRI. KRISHNA PRASAD AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS AND ALSO AT: No.23, ADITYA TOWERS VNS ROAD, TASKER TOWN SHIVAJI NAGAR BANGALORE-560001.
7. M/S. UNICORN RESTAURANT 1ST FLOOR & 3RD FLOOR No.94/3-I, INFANTRY ROAD BANGALORE-560001 REP. BY ITS PROPRIETRIX SMT. GAYATRI DESAI W/O SRI. GANAPATHI DESAI, MAJOR.
8. M/S. CRESCENT INFORMATION AND MANAGING CENTRE, 2ND FLOOR No.94/3-I, INFANTRY ROAD BANGALORE-560001 A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. AKMAL SHARIFF S/O KHADER SHARIFF, MAJOR AND ALSO AS: DIRECTOR NETWORKHOMES(P)LIMITED No.619, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 1ST STAGE INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560038.
(R1 SERVED ... RESPONDENTS NOTICE TO R2 TO R8 IS D/W V/O DTD12-12-2019) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 5.7.2018 VIDE ANNEX-J PASSED ON I.A.1/16 THEREBY ALLOWING THE R1 TO COME ON RECORDS AS DEFENDANT NO.8 PASSED BY THE XXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU IN O.S.8071/2013 & ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner being the plaintiff in eviction suit in O.S.No.8071/2013 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 05.07.2018, a copy whereof is at Annexure-J, whereby, learned XXII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, having partly favoured the 1st respondent’s application filed under Order I Rule 10, has permitted him to join the array of parties to the suit as a defendant. Despite service of notice, respondents have chosen to remain unrepresented.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the petition papers, the impugned order is liable to be set aside inasmuch as the Court below having recorded a finding that the 1st respondent impleading applicant is not acting in the best interest of the Trust, could not have permitted him to come on record as 9th defendant in the suit. The other lacuna which has infected the impugned order is that the application of the 1st respondent was to come on record as a plaintiff and not as a defendant at all.
3. Thus on both the above counts there is error apparent on the face of the record warranting indulgence of this court for setting it right.
4. In addition to the above the 1st respondent is neither a necessary party nor a proper party within the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in ‘Razia Begum vs. Sahabzada Anwar Begum & Ors.’, AIR 1958 SC 886; he has not demonstrated as to how his impleadment would facilitate due adjudication of the lis in question.
5. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds and the impugned order is set at naught.
The trial Court is requested to try and dispose of the suit expeditiously.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-