Allowed

The Rajatha Complex, v. M/S Srinivasa Enterprises

Karnataka HC18 Jan 2021WP/11826/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition under Article 227. The Court quashed the lower court's rejection of the petitioner's application to be impleaded as a defendant. The petitioner was directed to be impleaded, file pleadings within two weeks, and pay costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Petitioner impleaded as Defendant No.5 forthwith; to file pleadings within two weeks; pay cost of Rs.25,000.

The Rajatha Complex, Vs M/S Srinivasa Enterprises — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.11826 OF 2016 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE RAJATHA COMPLEX TENANT WELFARE ASSOCIATION (R), NO. 812/1, OTC ROAD, CHICKPET, BANGALORE - 560 053. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT G. BABULAL PORWAL.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. B.V.SHANKARA NARAYANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GAUTHAM CHAND S.F., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . M/S. SRINIVASA ENTERPRISES, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 28, EAST CIRCLE ROAD, V.V.PURAM, BANGALORE - 560 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI. B.M.SUNIL S/O B.P.MAHABALA.

¶13

2 . STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,, VIDHANA SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

¶15

3 . THE TAHASILDAR (SPECIAL), BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009. 4 . THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009. 5 . M/.S RAJATHA ENTERPRISES, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 495, AVENUE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 002. REP. BY ITS PARTNER, MANAGING PARTNER SRI. K.V.SHIVAKUMAR.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. V.B. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP FOR R2- R4; SRI. SADASHIVA, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.02.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDE AT ANNEX-F AND ALLOW THE IMPLEADING APPLICATION DATED 11.03.2014 IN THE PENDING SUIT O.S.9982/2006 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL COURT BANGALORE.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioner-Association having suffered rejection of its

¶22

prayer for impleadment as one of the defendants to the declaration suit in O.S.No.9982/2006 filed by the first

¶23

¶24

respondent herein is knocking at the doors of the Writ Court for assailing the said rejection vide order dated 23.02.2016, a copy whereof is at Annexure-F rendered by learned XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore.

¶25

After service of notice, the respondents having entered appearance through their respective counsel, resist the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been constructed.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

¶27

(a) Admittedly, the suit of the first respondent is for a decree of declaration & consequential relief in respect of the subject property; the petitioner-Association too held lease of the same property given vide Government Order dated 24.05.2011 which is set at naught by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.12680/2011 decided on 06.07.2002 and petitioner’s appeal in W.A.No.6259-6260/2012 (GM-RES) is

¶28

¶29

pending and that interim order of stay is also stated to have been granted by the Division Bench.

¶30

(b) The above being the position, case of the petitioner broadly falls with in the parameters of Apex Court decision in

¶31

RAZIA BEGUM VS. SAHEBZADI ANWAR BEGUM AND OTHERS AIR 1958 SC 886 since they are likely to be affected by the outcome of the suit in question and thus they are proper parties thereto if not necessary parties.

¶32

(c) The impleadment of the petitioner as one the defendants to the on going suit proceedings would not cause much prejudice to the other already existing parties except that it’s Cause Title to some extent gets elongated; to take care of the arguable delay that may be occasioned by the impleadment of the petitioner, a suitable provision can be made by prescribing filing of the Written Statement if any in a time bound way and stipulating the condition that not even a single adjournment shall be sought for in the suit proceedings; that brings the fairness and maintains the balance of equity.

¶33

¶34

In the above circumstance, this writ petition succeeds;

¶35

impugned order is set at naught; petitioner’s subject application having been favoured, petitioner shall be impleaded as defendant No.5 forthwith; petitioner shall file its pleadings, if any, within an outer limit of two weeks whereupon it is to the respondents to seek any amendment to their pleadings or file replication as the case may be, within next two weeks.

¶36

Petitioner if does not avail the opportunity to file its pleadings as above, its right to file one stands forfeited and further that petitioner shall not seek even one single adjournment in the suit on any ground whatsoever.

¶37

The petitioner shall be ousted from the cause title of the

¶38

suit if its writ appeal fails; in any event the out come of the suit shall be subject to outcome of the writ appeal.

¶39

Petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs.25,000/- to the first respondent-plaintiff within two weeks or before the next date of hearing, whichever is later, failing which, impugned order

¶40

now invalidated shall resurrect on its own as phoenix.

¶41

¶42

Since suit is of the year 2006, the learned Judge of the Court below is requested to try & dispose off the same within an outer limit of six months and report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

The Rajatha Complex, v. M/S Srinivasa Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Rajatha Complex, v. M/S Srinivasa Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Lakshmi Vs Smt. Fathima Bi & Otheers

Smt Thayimuddamma Vs Sri Balegowda

Sri. Ashok Babu G Vs Smt.Jayalakshmi

B.M. Pattabhiramaiah Vs Smt. Amaravathi

Sri. T. Y. Govindappa Vs Smt. Muniyamma

Sri L Venukumar Vs Smt L Sumana