IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.49251 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
Mohammed Mansoor Khan, S/o.Late Abid Ali Khan, Aged about 40 years, R/o.No.24, 1st Cross, Someswaranagar, Jayanagar 1st Block, Bengaluru. ... PETITIONER (By Sri. Satish T.S., Adv.) AND:
1. Sri.S.Sundaram, S/o.M.Soundara Rajan, Aged about 52 years, R/at No.48-A, Bannerghatta Road Layout, Jayanagar “T” Block, Thilak Nagar, Bengaluru-560 041.
2. The Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, N.R.Square, Bengaluru-560 002. ... RESPONDENTS This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated 15.02.2017 in O.S.No.567/2016 on I.A.No.3 passed by the Additional Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru, etc.
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.02.2017 passed on I.A.3 in O.S. No.567/2016 on the file of Addl. Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
2. The petitioner has filed the suit in O.S. No.567/2016 seeking for perpetual injunction restraining respondent No.2 not to demolish or interfere with the suit schedule property. In the said proceedings, I.A.No.3 was filed by respondent No.1 seeking for impleadment under Order I Rule 10(2) read with S.151 CPC. The said application upon being dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, respondent No.1 had approached this court in W.P. No.43093/2016 which came to be disposed off with liberty and direction to the petitioner to seek impleadment in O.S. No.567/2016 and the Trial Court has been directed to allow such impleadment and give an opportunity to lead evidence to respondent No.1, pursuant to which it appears the respondent No.1 has filed I.A.No.3 under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC seeking for impleadment and the same came to be allowed following the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.43093/2016. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.1 has suppressed the material facts before this Court in writ petition proceedings in as much as the rejection of the earlier application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with S.151 of CPC by the Trial Court. The Trial Court ought not to have allowed the application, contrary to the earlier decision. It is also submitted that the review petition filed against the order passed in W.P.
No.43093/2016 has been dismissed confirming the order passed therein.
4. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.1 has suppressed the material facts (in W.P. No.43093/2016) and has played fraud on the Court cannot be countenanced for the reason that the order passed in W.P. No.43093/2016 has reached finality in view of the dismissal of the review petition and no further challenge made thereon. In such circumstances, Trial Court is absolutely right in complying with the direction issued by this Court.
No jurisdictional error is found in the order impugned.
Writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE sac*