The High Court of Karnataka rejected a writ petition filed by SBI defendants in a money suit against the impugned order denying their request for impleading others as defendants. The bench held that the party's choice of opponents is limited to the plaintiff.
None; plea of impleading other parties rejected in limine.
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 BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.115 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER/ THE ASST. GENERAL MANAGER, SRI RAGHAVENDRA A RAO AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
2
H. O. K. G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MAHABALESWARA.T.S. ADVOCATE)
AND:
R. SAMPATH KUMAR R/AT FLAT NO.71,TOWER -1 REBLE BENGALORE APARTMENTS NO.7/A, DOLLARS COLONY RMV 2ND STAGE, NAGASHETTYHALLI BENGALURU.
…RESPONDENTS
3
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-F DATED 03.06.2020 PASSED BY THE LXXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, IN COMMERCIAL O.S.NO.3771/2016 ON I.A.2.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners being the defendants in a money suit in O.S.No.3771/2016 are invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 03.06.2020, a copy whereof is at Annexure-F whereby their application in I.A.No.2 filed under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908 having been negatived by the learned LXXXIII City Civil Judge, Bangalore, their request for impleading others as defendants has been rejected.
petitioners and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as:
a) Admittedly it is a money suit and no Counter Claim is made by the petitioners although they are resisting the suit by filing the Written Statement; it has been a settled position of law that it is for the dominant litis namely the
4
plaintiff to choose who his opponents should be in a suit and, there is no such choice available to the defendants subject to all just exceptions into which argued case of the petitioners does not fit.
(b) The impugned order is not vulnerable for challenge since the reasons on which it has been structured are consistent with the law laid down by Apex Court in RAZIA BEGUM VS. SAHEBADI ANWAR BEGUM AND OTHERS AIR 1958 SC 886; the vehement contention of learned counsel for
the petitioners that the persons who were sought to be impleaded are necessary parties and without them there would not be a complete adjudication of the lis is no ground for impleadment although arguably it can be a ground for dismissing the suit for non-joinder of necessary parties.
In the above circumstances, writ petition is rejected in limine, all contentions of the parties having been otherwise kept open.
Sd/JUDGE
DS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a money-suit defendant is entitled to seek revival of impleaded parties under Article 226 when the pleader submits a written statement.
Whether the High Court under Article 227 can disturb the trial court's refusal to implead necessary parties.
Whether non-joinder of parties amounts to a ground for impleadment by defendants or a bar only for plaintiffs.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Razia Begum vs. Saheba Di Anwar BegumApplied¶35
RAZIA BEGUM VS. SAHEBADI ANWAR BEGUM AND OTHERS AIR 1958 SC 886 · Who else cites this
State Bank of India
Krishna S. Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
