IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.31401/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN M/S VIDYASHIP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, NO 42/3, SHIVANAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKAHOBLI, BANGALORE – 560064, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. U. VIVEKANANDA NAYAK, S/O UMANATH NAYAK U, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDAN, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SMT. YASHODAMMA, D/O HANUMAKKA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A NO.1109, HOSABIDI, YELAHANKA, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE – 560064 .
2. SRI. RAMESH Y.N, C/O Y.R. MUNIYAPPA, S/O LATE HANUMAKKA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1258, 1ST B CROSS, BEHIND VASAVI TEMPLE, GANDHI NAGAR, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU – 560065.
3. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA, W/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1258 1ST B CROSS, BEHIND VASAVI TEMPLE, GANDHI NAGAR, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE – 560065.
4. SRI. RAJA, S/O LATE HANUMAKKA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 1258, 1ST B CROSS, BEHIND VASAVI TEMPLE, GANDHI NAGAR, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE – 560065. ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.02.2019 WHICH IS ANNEXURE AS ANNEXURE-A TO THIS WRIT PETITION, PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BANGALORE [CCH-2] IN O.S.NO.3458/2013 ON APPLICATION FILED BY PETITIONER U/S 151 OF CPC (I.A.NO.3) WHICH APPLICATION IS ANNEXED AS ANNEXURE-N TO THIS WRIT PETITION.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Application under Section 151 of CPC read with Order XXIII Rule 3A can be maintained only by a party eo nomine to the suit from which the impugned decree emanated; admittedly, the petitioner was not a party to the suit vide decision of this Court in the case of SIDDALINGESHWAR VS. VIRUPAKSGOUDA, AIR 2003 KAR 407 (DB) and the Apex Court in the case of RAJANNA VS. S.R. VENKATASWAMY, 2014 SCC ONLINE SC 920. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be faltered.
2. It is needless to mention that it is open to the petitioner to lay a challenge to the subject compromise decree by a separate suit, if grounds do exist.
It is not necessary to state that the period spent in the prosecution of the subject application that culminated into the impugned order shall be discounted while computing the period of limitation prescribed for filing of a separate suit.
Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed off keeping open all contentions of the parties.
Sd/- JUDGE cbc