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.36732 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
P.G. RAMAPPA S/O. LATE GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT GUNJURUPALYA VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK.
(BY SRI.G.G. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SADANAND SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. VENKATARAMANAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.
1(a) SRI. VENKATESH MURTHY, S/O. LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 1(b) SRI. MAHADEV S/O. LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 1(c) SRI. VINAYAKA, S/O. LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 1(d) SMT. KANAKAMMA, … PETITIONER D/O. LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 1(e) SMT. NAGARATHNA, D/O. LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.19, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN, GEETHA COLONY, KANAKANAGARA, KANAKAPURA ROAD, YELACHENAHALLI, J.P. NAGAR POST BANGALORE – 560 078.
2. SRI. KEMPAIAH S/O. LATE CHANGA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT PANATHUR POST, BHOGANAHALLI VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK.
3. SMT. JAYAMMA, W/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT BHOGANAHALLI VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK.
4. SRI NARAYANA REDDY SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs.
4(a) SRI. RAJAPPA REDDY S/O. LATE NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
4(b) SRI. SRINIVASA REDDY S/O. LATE NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
4(c) SRI. KESHAVA REDDY S/O. LATE NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
4(d) SRI. JAYARAMA REDDY, S/O. LATE NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
R(a) TO 4(d) ARE RESIDING AT THULASI THEATRE, MARATH HALLI POST, MARATHHALLI, BANGALORE – 560 037.
4(e) SMT. S. NIRMALA DAUGHTER IN LAW OF LATE K. NARAYANA REDDY, NO.104, F FINEWOOD APARTMENTS NAL WIND TUNNERL ROAD MARUGESHAPALYA BANGALORE. 560 017.
4(f) SMT. P. VIJAYA, D/O. LATE NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO.286, 6TH CROSS 1ST STAGE, INDIRANAGARA, BANGALORE – 560 038.
5. SRI. N.C. MUNIYAPPA S/O. LATE CHIKKA VENKATARAMANAPPA @ VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NAGAMANGALA VILLAGE JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.
6. SMT. SHANTHAMMA @ AKKAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS D/O. LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA, R/AT NO.116, 2ND ‘E’ CROSS, OMBR LAYOUT, BANASWADI BANGALORE – 560 043.
7. SRI. PRAKASH S/O. LATE MUNISWAMY NAIDU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.10, SHRUTHI MANSION, SATHYA EXTENSION, B. NARAYANAPURA, BANGALORE – 560 016.
8. SRI. RAVI C.
S/O. LATE JAYARAMA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.10, SHRUTHI MANSION, SATHYA EXTENSION, B. NARAYANAPURA, BANGALORE – 560 016. ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 7.11.2017 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1/2017 IN O.S.NO.6454/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCCH NO.44) VIDE ANN.F BY A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER, WRIT OR DIRECTION AND ALLOW IA NO.1/2017 IN O.S.NO.6454/2006 PASSED ON 7.11.2017 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCCH NO.44).
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri.G.G.Shastri, learned Counsel for Sri.Sadanand Shastri, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 7.11.2017 by which, the application filed by the petitioner for impleading him as defendant No.8 in the suit has been rejected by the trial Court, on the ground that no relief against the petitioner in the suit has been sought and the petitioner has the remedy of filing civil suit.
3. Admittedly, the civil suit has been filed by the plaintiffs seeking relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The petitioner wants to assert his right in respect of the suit property. Confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the proceeding in the suit is fixed for judgment on 19.1.2019 and the petitioner be granted liberty to file a separate suit.
4. In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the fact situation of the case, no case for interference in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. However, needless to state that the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a separate suit with regard to his grievance, if any.
With the aforesaid opportunity, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE bkp