IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.28196 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI. H.R. DAYANANDA S/O RAMANUJACHAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT HENJAGONDANAHALLI, KASABAL HOBLI, ARSIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 126.
(BY SRI. SADASHIVAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . THE CHIEF SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2 . THE TAHASILDAR ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN LDISTRICT – 573 103.
3 . SRI. T.C. NANDAKUMAR S/O T.R. CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED 53 YELARS 4 . T.S. NETHRAVATHI, W/O T.C. NANDAKUMAR, AGED 43 YEARS 5 . SMT. D.N. SHOBHA W/O D.C. SATHYANARAYAN, AGED 43 YEARS ... PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 ARE R/AT DHANVANTHRI NILAYA, ADJACENT TO B.H. ROAD, LAKSHMIPURA, ARASIKERE TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 103.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.R.ANITHA, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI GIRISH.S HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 TO R-5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC ARASIKERE ON I.A.4 IN O.S.459/2014 DATEAD 1.3.2017 BY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FOR IMPLEADMENT FILED BY THE R-3 TO 5 AT ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner being the plaintiff in an injunctive suit in O.S.No.459/2014 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 01.03.2017, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A, whereby the learned Additional Civil Judge, Arasikare, having favoured contesting respondents’ application in I.A.No.4 filed under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, 1908, has permitted them to enter the fray of the suit.
2. After service of notice the private respondents are represented by their counsel and the case of official respondents is espoused by the learned Government Pleader; both they vehemently resist the writ petition.
3. Both the sides having argued the matter for some time, the learned counsel for the petitioner now files a memo to the effect that the petitioner has nothing to do with the properties sold to the contesting private respondents herein qua the property comprised in the five registered sale deeds all evenly dated 12.11.2008 and that the petitioner’s grievance is only in respect of the subject road.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further assures that the petitioner shall not meddle with the said properties which admittedly belong to the contesting respondents herein and over which petitioner has no shadow of right; the memo reads as under:
“the petitioner in the above writ petition most humbly submit that the petitioner is not claiming any rights over the properties sold to the respondents 3 to 5 and the petitioner sill not meddle with the properties of the respondents 3 to 5 in the interest of justice”
In the above circumstances, there is no need for private respondents to participate in the suit proceedings as parties and therefore, the writ petition is disposed setting aside the impugned order.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE DS