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.45634/2018 (GM – CPC) BETWEEN:
1. Mr. RAJAGOPAL VENKATESAN IYER S/O LATE Mr. VENKATESAN AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 2. Mrs. JEANETTE IYER W/O Mr. RV IYER AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT APT. 35, ‘J’ BLOCK GOLDEN ORCHID, LAVELLE ROAD BANGALORE-560001. ... PETITIONERS [BY SRI M.ARUN PONNAPPA, ADV.] AND:
1. Mr. K.CHANDRASHEKAR RAJU S/O Mr. SANGRAM RAJU MAJOR, R/AT F-15, GOLDEN ORCHID 10/6 KASTURBA ROAD BANGALORE-560001.
2. Mr. BG BABU REDDY MAJOR 3. Mrs. VEENA REDDY D/O Mr. BG BABU REDDY MAJOR 4. Mr. BABU REDDY S/O LATE G. REDDY MAJOR RESPONDENT Nos.2 TO 4 ARE R/AT No.22, GMR BUILDING OPPOSITE NEW POST OFFICE HAL III STAGE BANGALORE-560075. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS IN O.S.NO.5139/2004 PENDING BEFORE XXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE; AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioners have challenged the order dated 31.08.2018 passed on I.A.No.18 in O.S.No.5139/2004 on the file of the XXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru [CCH-14].
2. The petitioners have filed a suit in O.S.No.5139/2004 seeking for the possession of the suit schedule ‘C’ property, ejecting the second and third defendants from the suit schedule ‘C’ property. In the said proceedings, I.A.No.18 was filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking permission to implead the proposed defendant No.12 Mr. Babu Reddy who was arrayed as defendant No.2 already in the suit filed by the plaintiffs. In such circumstances, the Trial Court rejected the application, imposing costs of Rs.10,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel Sri.M.Arun Ponnappa appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were oblivious of the legal proceedings and for the bonafide mistake committed by the petitioners, imposing huge cost of Rs.10,000/- would be an aspersion on the integrity and the position of the petitioners may be vindicated. Considering the same, costs imposed requires to be waived of.
4. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record.
5. The conduct of the petitioners in filing frivolous applications to implead the party as a proposed defendant who is already arrayed as a party to the suit proceedings obviously to be considered seriously. Filing of such inappropriate petitions would not only cause injustice to the other side but the public Court time is misused in dealing with such applications.
In the circumstances, imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- while dismissing the application cannot be found fault with. No error is found in the order impugned.
Writ petition stands dismissed as devoid of merits.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.