IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.44162 OF 2014 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI. NARENDRA BABU B.K. S/O S. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT. No.687, 9TH CROSS BAGALAGUNTE, NAGASANDRA POST BANGALORE-562073.
(By Mr. V. VISHWANATHA SHETTY, ADV.) AND:
1. M/S. HMT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OP SOCIETY LTD., SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA CO-OP SOCIETIES ACT HAVING ITS OFFICE AT THE COMMON SERVICES DIVISION BUILDING HMT POST, BANGALORE-560031 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY SRI. T.V. PRASAD S/O T. VENKATARAMANA RAO.
2. SRI. BALAJI S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS PROPRIETOR OF M/S. VENTURA PROPERTIES No.38/B, 30TH MAIN, BTM 2ND STAGE BANGALORE-560076.
… PETITIONER … RESPONDENTS (By Mr. SHANMUKHAPPA, ADV., FOR C/R2 (ABSENT) Mr. B.N. PRAKASH, ADV., FOR R1) - - -
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the entire records on the file of the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Nelamangala, in O.S.No.1762/2009 and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Taking into account the fact that respondent No.7 is a proforma respondent, his name is directed to be deleted from the cause title.
Mr.V.Viswanath Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.B.N.Prakash, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 05.07.2014 by which application preferred by the petitioner for his impleadment in a suit for specific performance of the contract instituted by respondent No.1 has been dismissed.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had filed the suit seeking the relief of specific performance of the contract on the strength of execution of the agreement of sale by respondent No.2 dated 24.12.2004 and the aforesaid suit has already been decreed, against which respondent No.2 and one Rajaiah have filed Regular First Appeals before this Court, which are pending consideration. In view of the aforesaid submission, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction that the decree passed in O.S.No.1762/2009 shall not bind the petitioner.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS AAJ:
29.08.2019 W.P.No.44162/2014 ORDER ON I.A.1/2019 After hearing the learned counsel for petitioner, it is directed that in first line of the order dated 10.01.2019 passed in W.P.No.44162/2014, the word `respondent No.7’ shall be read as `respondent No.2’ and in paragraph 4 before the word `respondent No.2’, the word `vendor of’ shall be inserted. This order shall be read in conjunction with order dated 10.01.2019 passed in W.P.No.44162/2014.
Accordingly I.A.1/2019 is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SBN