IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.50669 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
Sri.Sampath Kumar, S/o Ashwath Narayana, Aged about 30 years, R/o Chikkahosahalli, Channarayapatna Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District-562110. ... Petitioner (By. Sri. Narendra Gowda, Advocate) AND:
1. M.Sonne Gowda, S/o Muniyappa, Aged about 48 years, R/at Chikkahosahalli Village, Channarayapatna Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District-562110.
2. Bettakote Gram Panchayath, Bettakote, Channarayapatna Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District-562110 ... Respondents This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order passed on IA under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC dated 05.07.2018 passed by the Court of Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC at Devanahalli in O.S.No.572/2015 and thereby allow the application filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-H.
This petition is coming on for ‘preliminary hearing’ this day, the court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner who is the impleading applicant before the trial Court has filed an IA under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (‘CPC’, for short) before the Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC at Devanahalli in O.S.No.572/2015 which came to be rejected on 05.07.2018. Hence, he filed this writ petition to quash the said order.
2. The first respondent who is the plaintiff filed O.S.No.572/2015 for permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property bearing No.67/90/1, measuring east to west 30 feet and north to south 40 feet situated at Chikkahosahalli Village, Channarayapatna Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk more fully described in the schedule. In the plaint, it is contended that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the said property and the Grama Panchayath has no right, title or interest to interfere with the same. The defendant-Grama Panchayath filed written statement denying the plaint averments and contended that the said property belongs to them and one Sampath Kumar S/o Ashwathnarayana and other have given a petition before the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayath against the plaintiff. The Executive Officer registered the case in No.2/2015-16 and issued notices to the plaintiff and defendant panchayath.
3. After hearing both sides, the petition came to be allowed by Taluk Panchayath on 27.08.2015 and ordered to cancel the said katha. As per the order of the Taluk Panchayath, the PDO of defendant panchayath has canceled the katha in respect of property in question. The said application was resisted by the plaintiff and contended that the suit is for permanent injunction, as such, there is no relief sought against the impleading applicants and they have got no locus-standi in the suit. The trial court after considering the application and objections, rejected the said application. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Sri.Narendra Gowda, learned counsel appearing for petitioner contends that the impugned order passed by the trial court rejecting the application of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC is contrary to the material on record. He would further contend that the property in question being a public property and once, the defendant in collusion with the plaintiff have already got transferred the khata to the name of the plaintiff and on complaint of the impleading applicant the said public property being protected. Therefore, the impleading applicant is a necessary and property party to the suit. The said fact is not considered by the trial Court. Hence, sought to allow the writ petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is undisputed fact that the suit is filed by the plaintiff against the Grama Panchayath for permanent injunction and the same is disputed by the defendant-Grama Panchayath by filing objections and also denied the ownership of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has to establish his case based on oral and documentary evidence on record. In a suit for permanent injunction, the impleading applicant is no way concerned to the property in question. As such, he is not a necessary party to the suit, as the suit is filed against the Grama Panchayath. The defendant being a public authority who is entrusted to safeguard the interest of the public and public property, who is already been arrayed as defendant and the relief sought is only against the defendant, therefore, there is no necessity to implead other public as defendants. Without impleading applicant, the suit can be effectively adjudicated between the parties. Therefore, trial Court has justified in rejecting the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC. As such, petitioner has not made out any ground interfere with the impugned order in exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE JS/-