IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 39776 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. SRI. M J NAGARAJA REDDY, S/O LATE M J JAYARAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.6, 2ND CROSS, MURGESH PALYA, HAL POST, BENGALURU.
2. SRI. RAJASHEKAR, S/O M SHAMANNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.129/3, 12TH CROSS, DOMLUR, BENGALURU – 560 071.
… PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JANARDHANA G, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI. A NARAYANASWAMY, S/O LATE AJJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT NO.146, 13TH & 14TH CROSS, ADJOINING , DOMLUR VILLAGE, BENGALURU – 560 071.
2. THE COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SANKEY ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B V SHANKAR NARAYANARAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. ASHWIN S HALADY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.08.2018 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU IN O.S.NO.25915/2007 IN REJECTING THE I.A.NO.1/2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR IMPLEADING THEM, VIDE ANNEXURE –K.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner an intending party in a Civil Suit in O.S.No.25915/2007 for injunctive relief filed by the 1st respondent against the 2nd respondent is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 31.08.2018, a copy whereof is at Annexure-K, whereby the IV Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru has rejected his application filed under Order I Rule 10 of CPC 1908 seeking impleadment as 2nd defendant to the said suit. The respondent-plaintiff having entered caveat through his counsel, opposes the writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner is a most proper party to the suit in question, if not a necessary party since he has got a vital interest in the subject property; his impleadment would not affect in any way the respondent-plaintiff and conversely, it would facilitate a final and effective adjudication of the lis. So arguing, he seeks allowing of the writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent- plaintiff contends that it is he who is the dominant litis and therefore it is he who decides the array of parties; an intruder like the petitioner cannot seek loading of his name to the cause title of the suit since such a course would widen the scope of the lis beyond what the original parties have drawn their battle lines; petitioner’s presence in the proceedings is uncalled for since he is neither a necessary party nor a proper party. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. I have perused the petition papers. I am of the considered view that petitioner needs to be impleaded as 2nd defendant to the suit of the 1st respondent for the following reasons:
(a) petitioner’s Civil Suit in O.S.No.8807/2007 against the 2nd respondent-BDA having been decreed in part, an appeal in RFA No.974/2013 is pending, wherein a part of the subject property in respondent’s O.S.No.25915/2017 is also involved;
(b) the likely decree in 1st respondent’s O.S.No.25915/2007 has a bearing on petitioner’s alleged interest in the subject property and therefore he is a proper and necessary party going by the parameters of the Apex Court decision in the case of RAZIA BEGUM vs. SAHEBADI ANWAR BEGUM & OTHERS, AIR 1958 SC 886;
and (c) the impleadment of the petitioner as a defendant to the suit proceedings would facilitate a complete and effective adjudication of the lis with no likely prejudice to the respondents herein; thus justice of the case requires his impleadment than rejection of his request.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds in part; petitioner’s application for impleadment is favoured; the trial Court shall process the matter further.
Since it is a suit of 2007, the trial Court is requested to try and dispose off the same within an outer limit of one year.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv