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.56931 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) & WRIT PETITION NO.829 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
Sri.Jayaprakash D.Karkikar, S/o. Dayananda Karkikar, Aged about 44 years, R/at Murudeshwara Village and Post, Near Syndicate Bank, Bhatkala Taluk, Uttara Kannada District, Pin: 581 350. … Petitioner (By Sri.K.Chandrashekar Achar, Advocate) AND:
1. Smt. Padma Hegde, D/o. Mr. Shankar Hegde, W/o. Javed Hussain, Aged about 41 years, R/at No.B, 7/6, Platinum City Apartment, No.2, HMT Road, Yeshwanthapura, Bengaluru-560 022.
2. Mr. Kishan Hegde, S/o Late. K.R.Hegde, Kolkebail House, Shiriyara Village & Post, Udupi Taluk and District, Pin - 567 210.
3. Shiriyara Muddanna Shetty, S/o Late. K.Duggappa Shetty, Aged about 60 years, R/at Shiriyara Village & Post, Udupi Taluk and District, Pin-567 210. … Respondents - - -
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 27.11.2018 passed in I.A.No.9 filed in R.A.No.3/2015 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Udupi (Sitting at Kundapura) as Annexure-L.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.K.Chandrashekar Achar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondents.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission.
3. In these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 27.11.2018 by which the application- I.A.No.9 filed in R.A.No.3/2015 by respondent No.3 herein for impleadment has been allowed on the assumption that the petitioner has no objection to allowing the same.
4. When the matter was taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no notice of the aforesaid application was given to the petitioner and the application was allowed on the very day when it was presented without issuing any notice to the petitioner.
5. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since the order has been passed without any notice to the petitioner and without affording any opportunity to have a say in the matter, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Hence, the Court below is directed to decide the application preferred for impleadment of respondent No.3 afresh, after notice to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed off.
Sd/- JUDGE rs*