IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 31610 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. SRI. CHOWDAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNI BHOVI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 2. SRI SHASHIKUMAR M N S/O NARAYANASHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO 2, SAPTHAGIRI LAYOUT, 2ND CROSS, MARUTHI NAGAR KOGILU MAIN ROAD, YELAHANKA BENGALURU – 560064.
(BY SMT. MANJULA D, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI. B K CHANDREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, 2. SRI B K MUNIRAJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 3. SRI B K MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 4. SRI B K ANAND KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 5. SRI B K ASWATHANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, ALL ARE SON OF LATE P KEMPANNA, R/O BHOGANAHALLI VILLAGE, PANATHUR POST, BANGALORE EAST TALUK - 560103.
6. SRI NAGARAJA @ NAGARAJAPPA, … PETITIONERS S/O DODDABAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 7. SRI GOVINDARAJU, S/O DODDABAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 8. SMT MEENAKSHAMMA, D/O DODDABAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT BHOGANAHALLI VILLAGE, PANATHUR POST, BANGALORE EAST TALUK - 560103. (BY SRI.) … RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 8.4.2019 ON I.A.NO.1/2019 IN O.S.NO.7733/2007 ON THE FILE OF XXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH-35) AT BENGALURU A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D AND I.A.NO.1/2019 BE ALLOWED AS PRAYED FOR.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioners being the impleading applicants in O.S.No.7733/2007 filed by the respondent – plaintiffs are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for laying a challenge to the order 08.04.2019 a copy whereof is at Annexure-D whereby, the learned XXXIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, has rejected their application in IA No.4 filed under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the writ petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter because:
(i) the suit is O.S.No7733/2007 is for a decree of specific performance of agreements to sell dated 11.02.1993 and 18.05.1993; after filing of the Written Statement, issues have been framed and the recording of evidence is also over; the suit is posted for arguments; at that stage, the petitioners have moved the subject application on 12.02.2019; thus, the application is highly belated and the latches galore on the part of petitioners; and, (ii) petitioners seek to get impeaded to resist the suit on the ground that they hold another agreement to sell the suit property, dated 09.03.2007; however, petitioners have produced only a Xerox copy of the said agreement and nothing is stated about the original; Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 states that an agreement to sell per se does not create any interest in the property in favour of the vendee; thus, they are neither a necessary party nor a proper party to the adjudication of the suit in view of the parameters prescribed by the Apex Court in the case of RAZIA BEGUM VS. SAHEBADI ANWAR BEGUM AND OTHERS AIR 1958 SC 886.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition being devoid of merits, stand rejected in limine.
The observations made hereinabove shall not preclude the petitioners from taking up independent suit proceedings, if they so choose.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv