IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.48865 OF 2016 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. SRI RAGHUPATI, S/O CHINNABBAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
2. SRI NARAYANA REDDY, S/O CHINNABBAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
3. SRI BABU REDDY, S/O LATE YELLAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
4. SRI RAMASHEKARA REDDY S/O YELLAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
5. SRI CHANDRAPPA REDDY S/O YELLAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT, # 120/1, 4TH CROSS, ANNASANDRA PALYA, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 017. ... PETITIONERS (BY S.SREEVATSA SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI MOHAMMED SIDDIQ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI UDITA RAMESH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. KANAKAMMA, W/O LATE RAMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 2. SRI RAJASHEKARA REDDY, S/O LATE RAMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
3. SRI PRAKASH, S/O LATE RAMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
4. SRI RAJESH, S/O LATE RAMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
5. SRI RAJA REDDY, S/O LATE C MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
6. SRI VENU GOPAL REDDY, S/O LATE C MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 7. SRI MANJUNATH REDDY, S/O LATE C MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT ANNASANDRA PALYA, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 017.
8. SMT.R.RAJA SULOCHANA, D/O LATE M.RAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.69, PEMBROOKE LAYOUT, PANATHUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE – 560103.
9. SRI N.SREENIVASULU REDDY, S/O.LAKSHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.303, AMRUTHA RESIDENCY, DODDANEKUNDI, MARATHAHALLI POST, BANGALORE – 560037.
10. SRI SURENDRA GOPAVARAM, S/O LATE HARANATH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.A-403, DHANUSHREE APARTMENTS, NO.306, 1ST MAIN ROAD, JAKKASANDRA, 1ST BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE – 560034.
11. SRI.PAVAN KUMAR KALATHURU, S/O K.SRINIVASULU REDDY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.T-01, 3RD FLOOR, “SRI RAMA PRIDE”, ANNASANDRAPALYA, VIBHUTIPURA DHAKALE, K.R.PURA HOBLI, BANGALORE – 560017. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P B AJIT, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4, R6 & 8-11) **** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 2.8.2016 VIDE ANNEX-E PASSED BY THE LEARNED CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY IN O.S.NO.6281 OF 2015 IN I.A.NO.4.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioners being the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of title and for injunctions are knocking at the doors of this Court assailing the order dated 02.08.2016 passed by the learned trial judge whereby their application in IA No.4 seeking impleadment of the opposing respondents herein as the defendants has been dismissed. After service of notice, the respondents have entered appearance through their counsel who resists the writ petition.
2. Learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Sreevatsa appearing for the counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is a product of non-application of mind to the contents of their impleading application; it is not a speaking order; the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in their Written Statement have specifically stated that they have sold ‘B’ schedule property to the proposed defendant No.9 who in turn has executed a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) in favour of proposed defendant No.10, who has sold the same in favour of proposed defendant No.11; the proposed defendant No.8 is daughter of the defendant No.1 who has given a release deed in favour of defendant No.4; without these persons being added as the defendants, the decree would be meaningless. So arguing, he seeks for the allowing of the writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents per contra submits that the proposed defendants are not necessary parties to the suit nor proper parties for adjudication; the trial Court need not give elaborate reason for rejecting impleading applications and the reason assigned in the impugned order is sufficient to sustain it. So arguing, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.
4. I have heard the learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. I have perused the writ petition papers. I am of the considered view that this writ petition needs to be allowed permitting impleadment of proposed defendants for the following reasons;
a) Suit is one for the decree of declaration and mandatory / permanent injunction; it is of the year 2015 and the contesting defendants having filed in their Written Statements have stated about creation of some interest in the subject property in favour of proposed defendants. Therefore, in the absence of persons interested in the suit property as parties eo nomine, the decree would not be efficacious;
b) The impleadment of proposed defendants is essential for effective and complete adjudication of the lis in question which relates to title to the immovable property of huge worth; non-impleadment would materially prejudice the case of the petitioners and conversely impleadment would not cause much prejudice to the opposing parties who could be awarded costs in the event they are found to be unjustifiably loaded to the litigation.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order; petitioner – plaintiffs application in IA No.4 filed under Order I Rule 10 for impleadment of respondent Nos. 8 to 11 herein as the defendant Nos. 8 to 11 to the suit in O.S.No. 6281/2015 is favoured; petitioners to amend the cause title of the suit within four weeks whereupon the impleaded defendants shall have option to file their pleadings within next four weeks.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE SJ/HB