IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT WRIT PETITION No.27886/2015 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
Mohammed Iyaz S/o late Abdul Rahaman Aged 56 years, R/at No.3067/2, Convent Road, Lashkar Mohalla, Mysore – 570 001.
... Petitioner (By Sri.Sangamesh R.B, Advocate) AND 1. Mohammed Khadir Qureshi, S/o Iliyas Ahmed, Aged 22 years, 2. Mohammed Faizan Qureshi, S/o Iliyas Ahmed, Aged 16 years, Being minor represented by natural Guardian mother Smt.Raziya Banu, R No.1 and 2, D.No.3083, Convent Road, Lashkar Mohalla, Mysore – 570 001.
3. Irshad Ahmed, S/o late Abdul Rahman, Aged 46 years, D.No.3083, Convent Road, Lashkar Mohalla, Mysore – 570 001.
... Respondents (By Sri.V.Rangaramu, Advocate for R3) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 02.06.2014 in so far as allowing I.A.No.4 filed by the respondent herein to implead himself as plaintiff No.3 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC on the file of First Civil Judge at Mysore in O.S.No.586/2014 at Annexure-C.
This Writ Petition is coming on for Preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Petitioner being the defendant in a declaratory suit in O.S.No.586/2014 is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 02.06.2014, a copy whereof is at Annexure-C, whereby the learned trial Judge, Mysore having permitted the original plaintiffs to withdraw the suit has allowed 3rd respondent herein to become the plaintiff for prosecuting the suit. The contesting respondent no.3 having entered appearance through his counsel resist the writ petition.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court grants relief to the petitioner for the following reasons:
(a) the suit in O.S.No.586/2014 was originally filed by respondents 1 & 2 herein; the 3rd respondent’s impleading application was not allowed when suit was sought to be withdrawn and accordingly it was; thus once the suit is permitted to be withdrawn the question of allowing the impleadment of the respondent no.3 to come on record as the sole plaintiff is arbitrary and illogical; and, (b) when the suit is by two persons, ordinarily no third person can be permitted to be impleaded as the third plaintiff, although he could be impleaded as a defendant and as such he could have filed his pleadings i.e, Written Statement; it is strange that after the suit is allowed to be withdrawn, the impleading application has mindlessly been favoured; further the impleaded person is permitted to amend the plaint which is not his pleadings; the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 provide for amendment of ‘his pleadings’ and not others pleadings.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds and the impugned order is set at naught to the extent the 3rd respondent was permitted to come on record as the plaintiff; consequently, the suit in O.S. No.586/2014 does not pend for consideration, the same having been withdrawn by the original plaintiffs.
However, this order shall not preclude the 3rd respondent from bringing his own suit in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE UN