IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 33552 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI H K NAVEEN AGED 40 YEARS, S/O LATE S B KRISHNACHAR, PERMANET ADRESS:
HANAGAL SHETTALLI VILLAGE, SOMWARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571236, NOW SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KALBAURGI (GULBARGA), KARNATAKA.
… PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHINAV R, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI D M RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O ALTE MADAPPA, AGRICULTURIST, 2. SMT SAROJA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, W/O D M RAJAPPA, 3. D R SHOBARAJ, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, S/O D M RAJAPPA, RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDENT OF HANAGAL, SHETTALLY VILLAGE, SOMAWARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT.
4. SMT H K RATHNAMMA AGED 59 YEARS W/O SRI S B KRISHNACHAR 5. SRI H K NANDISH AGED 37 YEARS, S/O SRI S B KRISHNACHAR, BOTH RESPONDENTS NO.4 & 5 ARE RESIDENT OF HANAGAL SHETTIALLI VILLAGE, SOMAWARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571286.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NISHANTH A.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 3;
R4 & 5 ARE SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.06.2018 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, VIRAJPET IN O.S.NO.53/2015 AT ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITON AND REJECT I.A.NO.XII DATED 28.01.2017 FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 IN O.S.NO.53/2015 AT ANNEXURE-C TO THE WRIT PETITION, BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT PETITION;
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner, having been impleaded as plaintiff No.3 in an injunctive suit in O.S.No.53/2015 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 21.06.2018, a copy whereof is at Annexure-E whereby, the learned Additional Civil Judge, Virajpet, has allowed the impleading application filed by the defendant No.3. The respondents having entered appearance through their counsel resist the writ petition.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court grants indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
a) the original plaintiff being the dominant litis is ordinarily the master of array of parties, especially in injunctive suits; a person is a necessary party to the suit proceeding is per se insufficient to seek his impleadment more particularly as the plaintiff;
b) a defendant in an injunctive suit ordinarily does not have a right to seek impleadment of another person as a co-plaintiff in an injunctive suit since framing of such suit and fixing the array of parties is exclusively within the domain of the dominant litis namely, the plaintiff; whether such a person can be impleaded as a co-defendnat is beside the point; and, c) if a person is a proper & necessary party and that he has not been arraigned as a party to the suit, it is open to the defendant to resist the suit on the ground of non-impleadment of necessary party; however this does not give a right of impleadment of such person to the suit.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set at naught. However, it is open to the respondents to resist the suit on the ground of non-impleadment of necessary party, if such a ground does avail on facts.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv