IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 46912/2014 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. SRI SUNIL A KALBURGI, S/O K.N.ASWATHANARAYANSA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 2. SMT. K S SUMAN, W/O SRI SUNIL A KALBURGI, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 3. SRI VENKATESH A KALBURGI, S/O K N ASWATHANARAYANSA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 4. SMT KUSUMA K V W/O SRI VENKATESH A KALBURGI, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO.7, 14TH C CROSS, K B TEMPLE STREET, 6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI A.V. NISHANTH ADV., ) AND:
1. SRI. MANJUNATH S, S/O L SHIVRAM,AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.630, 8TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS, RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR II STAGE, BANGALORE-560040.
2. SRI C JAGADEESHA, S/O CHIKKATHIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O NAGARABHAVI VILLAGE, OPP:MARUTI TEMPLE, I S E C ROAD, NAGARABHAVI, BANGALORE-560 072.
3. MS.PADMAA K BHAT, D/O LATE KRISHNA BHAT AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.488, 4TH CROSS, R R LAYOUT, JNANABHARATHI POST, BANGALORE-560 056.
4. SRI S PUTTASWAMY, S/O LATE G SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, NO.246, 1ST FLOOR, “CHENNAKESHAVASWAMY NILAYA”, 2ND MAIN ROAD, VIDYARANYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 023.
5. SMT SHOBHA R, W/O REVANASIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, NO.246, 1ST FLOOR, “CHENNAKESHAVASWAMY NILAYA”, 2ND MAIN ROAD, VIDYARANYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 023. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G. PAPI REDDY ADV., FOR R-1, R-2 & R-3 SERVED, V/O DATED:27/9/2019 SERVICE OF NOTICE IN RESPECT OF R-4 & 5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:6.9.2014, PASSED IN OS.NO.7614/09, PASSED BY THE LEARNED V ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANCAGLORE VIDE ANN-G & ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Respondent No.3 herein filed a suit for declaration and injunction. After filing of the suit, respondent No.3 sold the suit property to respondents 4 and 5. Respondents 4 and 5, pursuant to the purchase, made an application to come on record as plaintiffs 2 and 3. This application was allowed permitting them to come on record as plaintiffs 2 and 3.
2. Subsequently, the said plaintiffs 2 and 3 sold the property to the proposed plaintiffs 4, 5, 6 and 7 i.e., the petitioners herein. The said application has been rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that they purchased the property during the pendency of the suit without obtaining the permission of the Court.
3. In my view, since the petitioners herein have stepped into shoes of the original plaintiff by virtue of their purchase, they are not only necessary, but also proper parties.
4. The reasoning of the Trial Court that they could not be brought on record because they did not obtain permission of the Court before they purchased the suit properties is incorrect. In law, the Plaintiffs need not have obtained the permission of the Court to sell the property during the pendency of the suit. In law, the Purchasers of such property step into the shoes of the original plaintiff and will be entitled to continue the suit.
5. I am, therefore, of the view that the reasoning of the Trial Court is incorrect and the rejection of the application is improper and the said order is required to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside.
6. As a consequence, I.A.No.20 is allowed permitting the petitioners herein to come on record as plaintiffs 4, 5, 6 and 7 in O.S.No.7614/2009. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.
Sd/- JUDGE PKS