The High Court dismissed a writ petition preferring by a cooperative society challenging the impleading order. The Court held the Society was a necessary party to the suit despite statutory notice concerns, leaving substantive merit open.
Petition dismissed; Society granted liberty to file written statement within three weeks.
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 DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.100067/2015 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
THE SECRETARY, JYOTI URBAN CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, SAUNDATTI, TALUK SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH FOR SRI G.R.GURUNATH, ADVOCATE)
A N D :
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. KATTI ONI, SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM.
: 2 :
SAUNDATTI, TALUK SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVARAJ BALLOLLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 TO 4 ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.11.2014 IN O.S.NO.22/2008 AT ANNEXURE-G PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) JMFC & SAUNDATTI ON I.A.NO.X AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri Mallikarjunawamy B. Hiremath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri G.R.Gurunath, for petitioner and Sri Shivaraj Ballolli, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. Notice to respondents 2 to 4 has been served and they are unrepresented. Perused the records.
: 3 :
apart from claiming consequential reliefs. During the pendency of the suit, a plea was raised by defendants 1 and 2 contending that item No. “A” (2) (1) property i.e., landed property bearing Sy.No.296/1 totally measuring 2 acres 20 guntas had been mortgaged by defendants 1 and 2 by virtue of Hakku Patra executed by plaintiff and her husband and that they do not have any right, title or interest over the suit property. It is thereafter plaintiff being made known of this fact, filed an application under Order I Rule 10 (2) of the CPC for impleading the petitioner who is said to be the mortgagee (creditor). Said application having been allowed by impugned order dated 24.11.2014, proposed defendant No.4 is before this Court.
: 4 :
light of such notice having not been issued by the plaintiff, suit against 4th respondent is not maintainable and as such, perforcing petitioner to appear as 4th defendant in the suit would be onerous. He would also elaborate his submission by contending that by virtue of amount having been borrowed by defendants 1 and 2 by mortgaging the subject property in favour of proposed 4th defendant which loan had become a non-performing asset, had forced the Society to raise a dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act resulting in award being passed in its favour and only when award was being executed, plaintiff in collusion with defendants 1 and 2 has got filed the suit and to drag on the recovery proceedings, application in question to implead petitioner has been filed. It is also contended that if at all, plaintiff is aggrieved by judgment and award passed by the statutory authority, it is always open to such aggrieved person to challenge the same under Section 105 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1957. Hence, on these grounds, he seeks for allowing the petition and prays for rejection of the application filed for impleading.
: 5 :
: 6 :
dispute came to be raised which found favour in favour of the secured creditor by passing of award in its favour.
ii) It is the grievance of plaintiff that the said Hakku Bitta Patra dated 15.05.2005 is not binding on her and any consequential document i.e., Hakku Bitta Patra executed by the purported beneficiary namely defendants 1 and 2 would not be binding on her. This is an issue which is at large before the trial court. Since, 4th respondent is also claiming a right over the property in question namely as a mortgagee, it would be in the best interest of the petitioner also that proposed 4th defendant should come on record in the suit so as to stave off any future claims by the plaintiff in the event of plaintiff not succeeding in the suit.
: 7 :
not call for interference as it does not suffer from any infirmity either on facts or in law. Petitioner is a proper and necessary party to the proceedings and as such, this court does not find any other good ground to entertain this petition. No grounds. Petition stands dismissed.
It is made clear that no opinion is expressed on the merits of the case and if any expressed is for the limited purpose of considering the application for impleading. Contentions of both parties on merits of the case are kept open to be urged before the trial court. Petitioner is also granted liberty to file written statement within three weeks from today.
SD/JUDGE
Jm/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash the trial court order allowing the impleading of the Security Society as a necessary party under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC.
Whether the Security Society is a proper and necessary party to the suit challenging the validity of a Hakku Bitta Patra regarding mortgaged property.
Whether the suit against the Society is maintainable under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act due to lack of statutory notice.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
The Secretary, Jyoti Urban Co-op Credit Society Limited
Gouramma
Satish
Pradeep
Gangawwa
Aravind Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
