IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH WRIT PETITION NOs.37034-37035/2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. SRI K.M.NEELAKANTA REDDY S/O MUNIREDDY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 2. SRI K.M.SURENDRA BABU S/O MUNIREDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT MALLUR VILLAGE SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 105 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI K.P.BHUVAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI P.G.CHANDNIVAS S/O P.GOPALAN AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 2. SRI R.MANOJ S/O RAMACHANDRA IYER AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS BOTH ARE DIRECTORS OF M/S INDUS CONSTRUCTION CONSORTIUM PVT.LTD.
CORPORATE OFFICE: NO.45/13 5TH ROAD, NANDIDURGA EXTENSION JAYAMAHAL, BANGALORE -560 056 3. SRI SRINIVASA RAO S/O D.ESHWAR RAO AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 4. SMT. PADMAJA.D W/O SRINIVAS RAO AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESPONDENT Nos.3 AND 4 ARE R/AT NO.607, 5TH ‘A’ MAIN ROAD R.T.NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 032 5. SRI SHRISH R. DESHPANDE S/O LATE R.H.DESHPANDE AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1038 SRINIVASA, 6TH CROSS II BLOCK, BANASHANKARI I STAGE BENGALURU – 560 050 ... RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.7.2017 PASSED ON THE IMPLEADING APPLICATIONS ON I.A.NO.II AND III IN O.S.NO.5467/2013 BY THE LEARNED ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND THEREBY TO DISMISS THE APPLICATIONS FILED BY R3 TO R5/PROPOSED DEFENDANT NO.3 TO 5 UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CPC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
1. These writ petitions are by the plaintiffs and is directed against an interlocutory order dated 14.07.2017 passed by the trial Court. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the record.
2. By the impugned order, the trial Court has allowed the applications-IA Nos.2 and 3 filed by respondent Nos.3 to 5 to come on the record of the suit in OS No.5467/2013 as additional defendants.
3. It is relevant to refer to the following reasoning of the trial Court to allow the applications:
“10. As stated above, applicants contended that the applicant Nos.3 and 4 purchased Apartment No.102 and applicant No.5 purchased Apartment No.201 in the construction of Apartment building, which was undertaken by the defendant, who is the builder and developer by entering into Joint Development Agreement dated 16.12.2006 with the plaintiff, who is the land owner. When the plaintiffs sought to declare the Joint Development Agreement dated 16.12.2006 as cancelled, null and void, then the rights of the applicants will be affected. As agreed by the defendants, their apartments were not fully constructed and delivered to them. Though the applicants are not the necessary parties as no relief is sought against them, but they are the proper parties and their presence before the Court is necessary to adjudicate the matter effectively and completely. In case if the Court comes to the conclusion that the Joint Development Agreement dated 16.12.2006 is declared as cancelled and null and void, then the rights of the applicants will comes to an end. Hence, the applicants No.3 to 5 are to be impleaded as defendants in this suit. In this suit, the defendant is a Company and same is represented by Directors and it has to be taken that there is only one defendant in this suit and hence the applicants No.3 and 4 are to be impleaded as defendants No.2 and 3 and applicant No.5 has to be impleaded as defendant No.4. Hence, Point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.”
I find no error in the above reasoning of the trial Court to warrant interference.
4. However, having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year 2013, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously and in any event within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The trial Court shall dispose of the suit within six months without seeking for any further extension of time by strictly avoiding unnecessary adjournments in the matter. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.
Petitions disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE KSR