IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.34848 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI. AKKAPPA S/O LATE DODDAMADAPPA, AGED 68 YEARS RESIDING AT DODDAMADAPPA, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK HORMAVU POST, BENGALURU-560 043.
(BY SRI RAGHU PRASAD B S, ADV.) ... PETITIONER AND:
1. P. GURUMURTHY REDDY S/O L PAPAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.59/1, MARUTHI NILAYA, CHAIRMAN PAPAIAH REDDY LAYOUT 9TH B MAIN BANASWADI BANGALORE-560 043.
2. S LAKSHMANA MURTHY S/O SANJEEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT K CHANNASANDRA HORMAVU POST K.R.PURA HOBLI BANGALORE-560043.
3. N SIDDARAMAIAH S/OLATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT K CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE HORMAVU POST BANGALORE-560 043.
4. SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O SIDDARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 5. ASHOK KUMAR S/O SIDDARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS 6. S MANJUNATH S/O SIDDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS R/AT KANAKA NAGAR, K. CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE HORMAVU POST BANGALORE-560043.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI C VINAYA SWAMY, ADV. FOR R1 & 2 SRI. P.N.HARISH, ADV. FOR R3 SRI K.G. SADASHIVAIAH, ADV. FOR R4-6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.07.2018 ON I.A.NO.6 PASSED BY THE XVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU IN O.S.372/2010 VIDE ANNEX-F TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ALLOW I.A.6 AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY COST OF THIS PETITION.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Mr.Raghu Prasad B.S., learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.C.Vinaya Swamy, learned Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr.P.N.Harish, learned counsel for Respondent No.3.
Mr.K.G.Sadashivaiah, Adv. for Respondents No.
4 to 6.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 04.07.2018 passed by the trial Court, by which, application preferred by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code has been rejected.
3. Facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition briefly stated are, the petitioner had filed the suit seeking relief of specific performance of the contract dated 14.05.2006. The aforesaid civil suit was dismissed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved, petitioner has filed RFA No.1746/2017 before this Court which is pending for adjudication, in which, order of status quo has been granted. Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 09.11.2006. In the aforesaid Civil suit, the petitioner has filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC. The trial Court, by the impugned order dated 04.07.2018 rejected the application, inter alia on the ground that the petitioner is not a necessary party to the suit.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are trying to enter into compromise with the vendor of the petitioner and therefore his presence in the suit instituted by Respondents No.1 and 2 is necessary in order to bind the Respondents No.1 and 2 with the result of the litigation. In support of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, a reference has been made to a decision of this Court in the case of SMT.NARAYANAMMA v/s SRI.H.M.KRISHNAPPA, SINCE DEAD REP., BY LR. AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2015 KAR 474.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have supported the order passed by the trial Court and has submitted that the order passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record.
7. It is trite law that in a suit for specific performance of the contract, any person who is not a party to the contract is neither necessary nor proper party to the suit. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a party to the agreement dated 09.11.2006. In the suit for specific performance of the contract filed by Respondents No.1 and 2, the Court is required to only ascertain the factum of execution of the agreement and if the aforesaid issue is proved, to what relief the plaintiffs are entitled. The petitioner who is not a party to the contract, on which the suit is based, at no stretch of imagination is a proper nor necessary party to the suit filed by Respondents No1. and 2. The plaintiffs/Respondents No.1 and 2 have dominus litus.
8. The discretion to deal with the prayer for impleadment is not a question of jurisdiction, but one of the judicial discretion. The aforesaid discretion has been exercised on sound principles of law by the trial Court which does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of SMT.NARAYANAMMA (supra) has no application to the facts of the case on hand as in the aforesaid decision, the Bench of this Court has held that notwithstanding Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the Court has power to direct impleadment of the parties.
9. The impugned order does not suffer from any error or illegality. In the result, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE mpk/-* ct:bms