IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.5008 OF 2015 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. MOHAMMED MANJURALI MONDAL S/O SRI MOHAMMED KETTABARI MONDAL AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.234-235 R T STREET, BENGALURU.
2. S.K. JAMIL AHMED S/O SRI S.K. SULTHATN ALI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.234-235 R T STREET, BENGALURU.
3. GOPAL CHANDRA MONDAL S/O SRI BHPOTI CHANDRA MODAL AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.73/1 BASAVANNA TEMPLE STREET ANCHOPOT, AVENUE ROAD BENGALURU.
… PETITIONERS (By Mr. SACHIN V.R. ADV.) AND:
1. SMT. BHAVARI DEVI CHHAJER W/O LATE SRI SRI CHAND CHHAJER AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS.
2. SRI. RAJKUMAR CHHAJER S/O LATE SRI SRI CHAND CHHAJER AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
BOTH RESIDING AT NO.18 5TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS A.D. HALLI, MAGADI ROAD BENGALURU-560 079.
(By Mr. JAGADEESH G.P. ADV., FOR Mr. PARAS JAIN, ADV., FOR R1 & R2 R3 – DELETED V/O DATED 09-11-2016) - - -
… RESPONDENTS This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 7-1-2015 (Annex-A) passed in O.S.No.4235/2013 by the Hon’ble 39th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City on I.A. filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC by the R1 & 2/plaintiffs on 24-10-2014 and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Mr. Sachin V.R. learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Jagadeesh G.P. learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 07.01.2015 passed by the trial court by which application filed by the respondent under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short) has been allowed and the petitioners herein have been directed to be impleaded.
4. Facts giving rise to the filing of the petition is that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit seeking the relief of injunction against defendant No.1 before the Trial Court. During the course of the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code on the ground that defendant No.1 has executed three sale deeds in favour of the petitioners and therefore, they are necessary parties to the lis. The Trial Court has allowed the aforesaid application by the impugned order.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. From perusal of the application filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 under Order I Rule 10 (2) of the Code, it is evident that they have not averred in the aforesaid application that the petitioners have caused interference in their possession in any manner. Therefore, no cause of action has occurred to respondent Nos.2 to 5 to file an application against the petitioners. It is also pertinent to mention that respondents 1 and 2 have filed a suit for injunction simplicitor and have not sought a relief of declaration that the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioners are illegal. Therefore, from perusal of the application filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 no cause of action against the petitioners is discernable. However, the Trial Court has completely failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspect of the matter. Accordingly, the impugned order neither suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record nor from jurisdictional infirmity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and set aside.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
Sd/- JUDGE SS