IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.6567 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI.T.R.MUNIRAJU, S/O LATE N.P.RAMAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.5, 8TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN, VINAYAKA NAGAR, ‘B’ BLOCK, KONENA AGRAHARA, BENGALURU-560017. … PETITIONER (BY SRI.C.SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT.M.PRATHIBA, W/O SATISH T.K, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/A THIRUPALYA VILLAGE, BOMMASANDRA POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-560099.
2. SRI.MUNIVENKATA REDDY, S/O LATE P.RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/A THUBARAHALLI VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560037.
3. SRI.V.GOPALA KRISHNA @ GOPAL KRISHNAN, S/O LATE VENKATESAN PERUMAL, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/A NO.91/3, 19TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS, BTM LAYOUT 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560076.
4. SMT.JAYANTHI.M, W/O RAVICHANDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/A NO.5, CHIKKATHAYAPPA REDDY LAYOUT, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560068. … RESPONDENTS (SRI.M.D.BASAVANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 TO R4 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.11.2017 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN F.D.P.NO.58/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE HONOURABLE FIRST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU, THE ANNEXURE-F TO THIS WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner being an intending respondent in F.D.P.No.58/2015, is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court for assailing the order dated 18.11.2017, a copy whereof is at Annexure – F, whereby his application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w section 151 of CPC,1908 having been rejected, his request for impleadment is denied.
2. All respondents having been served with court notice, it is only the 1st respondent being the plaintiff in the court below is represented by her learned counsel who resists the Writ Petition.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this court grants indulgence in the matter because:
(a) the petitioner claims to be the interest holder in the subject property in partition suit; although a preliminary decree has been already entered, F.D.P.No.58/2015 is being possessed by the court below; the FDP is nothing but continuation of the suit and therefore, the impleading application could not have been rejected on the assumed ground that the same is not maintainable; and, (b) the claim for impleadment is justifiable since the petitioner has already filed another suit in O.S.No.113/2014 to which the 1st respondent Smt.Prathiba is not a party; therefore, the reasoning of the court below that all contentions can be taken up in the said suit is unacceptable; even otherwise, the impleadment would not prejudice any of the parties since the stand likely to be taken by the petitioner in the FDP can be resisted by the opponents if they so choose.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds and impugned order is set at naught; petitioner’s application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w section 151 of CPC, 1908 having been favoured, petitioner is permitted to be impleaded as 4th respondent in F.D.P.No.58/2015; court below to take steps accordingly.
All contentions of the parties are kept open.
The suit was of the year 2011 and the preliminary decree came to be entered on 14.03.2014; Final Decree Proceeding is filed in the year 2015; therefore, the learned trial Judge is requested to accomplish the Final Decree Proceedings, preferably within a period of six months.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE cbc