IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE BETWEEN:
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.9900/2019(GM-CPC) 1. K. MANCHEGOWDA, S/O LATE K. KALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 2. K. MURLIDHAR, S/O LATE K. KALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/O D. NO.256/1B, WATER TANK ROAD, KALLAHALLI, MANDYA CITY-571 401.
(BY SRI RAJA L., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. K. C. CHANNEGOWDA, S/O LATE CHENNEGOWDA, @ PIDDE KULLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/O NO.D-3/KL-54 APMC ROAD, V. V. NAGAR, KALLAHALLY, MANDYA-571401.
2. THE COMMISSIONER, CMC, MANDYA CITY MUNICIPAL M. C. ROAD, MANDYA-571 401 … ... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MANDYA IN O.S.NO.456/2014 ON IA NO. III DATED 9.3.2016 PRODUCED ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER In a suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction against the 2nd respondent-Corporation the present petitioners-impleading applicants had filed an application to come on record on the ground that the plaintiff has encroached their property.
2. The trial Court rejected the application holding that the applicants have no right over the suit schedule property in view of the judgment and decree passed by this Court in RSA No.785/1989 wherein the plaintiff was declared as the absolute owner and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Further the father of the applicants was restrained from interfering with the possession of the suit schedule property. Even when the said judgment was in force, the impleading applicants and their father interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs possession. Therefore, the plaintiff filed an Execution Petition i.e., Ex.P.137/2011 against the applicants for disobedience of the order passed by this Court which is pending consideration.
3. Subsequently, the father of the applicants filed another suit i.e., O.S.No.41/1995 for bare injunction which came to be dismissed against which an appeal was preferred i.e., R.A.No.34/2004 which also came to be dismissed on 3.3.2005. Hence, the applicants suppressing all these facts have come up with the application for impleading. Therefore the trial Court was of the opinion that in a suit for permanent injunction, it is the prerogative of the plaintiff to claim relief against the person who interferes with his possession. The decree of permanent injunction will not bind on the third party. Hence, the trial Court held that the applicants are not necessary and proper parties in the suit for injunction and accordingly, rejected the application. The same is in accordance with law.
4. The applicants have not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court in exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
5. However, it is open for the petitioners to protect their property, if any, in accordance with law.
Sd/- Judge Nsu/-