IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.36359 OF 2016 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI. B.L. SHIVAKUMAR S/O SRI PATEL LINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT. BEERESHWAR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571432.
(By Mr. SOMASHEKARA K.M. ADV., FOR Mr. C.R. GOPALASWAMY, ADV.,) AND:
1. SMT. SANDYARANI D/O SRI M.K. BASAVARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEASRS R/AT. SRI SOUMYA KESHAVA SWAMY TEMPLE STREET NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571432.
2. SRI. E. MUDDEGOWDA S/O SRI ERANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O BETTADAMALLENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571432.
(By Mr. K.K. VASANTH, ADV., FOR R1 Mr. R.S. RAVI, ADV., FOR R2 (ABSENT)) - - -
… PETITIONER … RESPONDENTS This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order vide Annx-E dated 23-03-2016 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Nagamangala, on I.A.No.XII in O.S.No.82/2011, consequently allow the application filed by the petitioner under order 1 Rule 10 CPC i.e., I.A.No.XII and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Mr.Somashekara K.M. for Mr.C.R.Gopalaswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.K.K.Vasanth, learned counsel for the respondent.
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 23.03.2016 passed by the Trial Court by which application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short) has been rejected.
4. Facts giving raise to the filing of the petition is that the respondent No.1 has filed a suit against respondent No.2 seeking the relief of permanent injunction. The petitioner herein filed an application seeking impleadment of the aforesaid suit on the ground that he has purchased the property from respondents No.2 in the year 2013 measuring 36x60 feet. The Trial Court vide order dated 23.03.2016 has rejected the aforesaid application.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since, the petitioner has purchased the property, he is a necessary party to the lis. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the plaintiff has dominus litus and the suit is only for permanent injunction. Therefore, the decree if any passed in a suit will not bind the petitioner. The jurisdiction of appeal with the prayer for impleadment has been exercised on the sound principles of law by the Trial Court, which does not call for any interference.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The question of objection of a party to the suit is not one of jurisdiction but of discretion. In the instant case, the Trial Court has held that from perusal of the plaint, it is evident that respondent No.1 has not sought any relief against the petitioner. The suit has been filed seeking the relief of permanent injunction. It is trite law, if a decree is passed in a suit for injunction, the same would only bind the parties. In case the petitioner is not impleaded in the suit, the decree, which may be passed will not bind the petitioner. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly exercised the discretion and has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner as the petitioner is a dominus litus. The aforesaid order neither suffers from any jurisdictional infirmity nor any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise it is well settled in law that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be exercised to correct all errors of a judgment of a Court acting within its limitation. It can be exercised where the orders is passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and justice. [See: ‘JAI SINGH AND OTHERS VS. M.C.D. AND OTHERS’, (2010) 9 SCC 385, ‘SHALINI SHYAM SHETTY VS. RAJENDRA SHANKAR PATIL’, (2010) 8 SCC 329 and ‘RADHE SHYAM AND ANOTHER VS. CHABBI NATH AND OTHERS’, (2015) 5 SCC 423].
In the instant case the impugned order is not passed in violation of fundamental principles of law and justice warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
In view of preceding analysis no case for interference in this writ petition is made out. The same fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE SS