The High Court heard a writ petition challenging a Civil Court order allowing a party to implead herself in a specific performance suit. The Court held that the question was not res integra and dismissed the petition, upholding the lower court order.
The writ petition is rejected, and the order of the court below allowing impleadment remains valid.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION No.45956 OF 2013 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
Shri. B.T. Bore Gowda, Advocate, Son of Late Shri. Thimme Gowda, Hindu, aged about 60 years, Residing at No.607/4, 3rd D Cross, 2nd Stage, HRBR Layout, Bangalore – 560 087.
…PETITIONER (By Shri. M. Erappa Reddy, Advocate)
AND:
2
Upper Govindnagar, Mained (E) Mumbai – 400 097. b. Mrs. Nooren Lobo Keswani, Daughter of Late T.C.Lobo, aged about 50 years, residing at No.602, Shradda Apartmetns, Upper Govindnagar, Mained (E) Mumbai – 400 097.
c. Smt. Theresa Lobo, Daughter of Late T.C.Lobo, aged about 45 years, No.601, 4th Cross, 1st A Main Road, Doddabanaswadi, Bangalore – 560 043. 2. Smt. Rohini Poonacha, Wife of Shri. Poonacha, Aged about 55 years, Residing at No.309, 5th Main, 3rd Cross, Sadanandanagar, NGEF East, Bangalore – 560 038. …RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. S. Shaker Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.2 Shri. K. Srihari, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 (a to c) )
3
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order passed by the XXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, CCH-29, Mayo Hall, Bangalore in O.S.No.1709/2005 on 5.8.2013 as per AnnexureD.
This Writ Petition is coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R
For the reasons stated, the order dated 22.07.2014 is recalled.
It is the petitioner’s case that he is an agreement holder in
respect of certain property. Therefore, when the agreement was negated by the vendor, the petitioner had filed a suit for specific performance. It now transpires that the proposed defendant claiming to have obtained a memorandum of understanding in respect of the very property of the petitioner, sought to implead herself. The court below having allowed such an application,
the petitioner is before this Court.
4
The question whether such a party who is a stranger to the agreement between the petitioner and the respondent could implead herself is no longer res integra. If a third party claiming an independent title to the property seeks to implead herself or himself, it is not permissible; if the party is claiming under the very agreement holder, the legal position is otherwise, as laid down in the case of Thomson Press (India) Ltd. vs. Nanak Builders and Investors Pvt. Ltd. and Others ( AIR 2013 SC 2389), and hence, whether the said proposed defendant has a right which could be established or not, is secondary. The point whether she can implead herself as a party would have to be answered in the affirmative. There is no infirmity in the order of the court below.
The petition is rejected.
Sd/JUDGE
KS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a third party claiming an independent title to property or a stranger to the agreement can be impleaded as a defendant.
Whether the order of the Civil Court allowing such impleadment was legally infirm.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Thomson Press (India) Ltd. vs. Nanak Builders and Investors Pvt. Ltd. and OthersExplained¶27
AIR 2013 SC 2389 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shri. B.T. Bore Gowda
Miss. Lydia Cathrine
Mrs. Nooren Lobo Keswani
Smt. Theresa Lobo
Smt. Rohini Poonacha
Anand Byrareddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
