Disposed

Mr. a Shashiraj v. Smt. Ramla

Karnataka HC21 Dec 2021WP/15754/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a habeas corpus matter filed under Article 226, the High Court of Karnataka disposed of a petition challenging an order that attempted to keep certain parties ex-parte. The Court allowed such parties to file applications as additional defendants to vindicate their rights.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; liberty granted to attorneys to file applications to come on record as additional defendants.

Mr. a Shashiraj Vs Smt. Ramla — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.15754/2021 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

MR. A SHASHIRAJ S/O JOHN AMBAT AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO.D-4H-109/D GOD'S DELIGHT, 6^TH CROSS ROAD, LAND LINKS TOWNSHIP DEREBAIL KONCHADY MANGALURU TALUK - 575 008

¶8

MR. ARUN COELHO S/O ANTONY FRANCIS COELHO AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT SACRED HEARTS NEAR VIDYADAHINI SCHOOL SURATHKAL MANGALURU - 575 014

¶9

... PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. CYRIL PRASAD PAIS, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

SMT. RAMLA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS W/O LATE A P M SHARAFUDHIN R/AT NAMIRA CHETTAMOON POST THALASSERY THALASSERY AMSOM VIDIKKAKAM

¶13

¶14

DESOM OF THALASSERY TALUK KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 101

¶15

SMT. A P M BEEFATHIMA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS D/O LATE C K P MAMMOO KEYI R/AT NAMIRA CHETTAMOON POST THALASSERY THALASSERY AMSOM VIDIKKAKAM DESOM OF THALASSERY TALUK KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 101

¶16

SMT. A P M KAYYU AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, D/O LATE C K P MAMMOO KEYI R/AT NAMIRA CHETTAMOON POST THALASSERY THALASSERY AMSOM VIDIKKAKAM DESOM OF THALASSERY TALUK KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 101

¶17

SMT. T M NABISA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, W/O LATE C K P CHERIYA KHADER KUTTI KEYI R/AT T M HOUSE POST TELLICHERY JUBILEE ROAD, TIRUVANGAD AMSOM DESOM OF THALASSERY TALUK KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 101

¶18

MR. SOOPY KUTTY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O LATE C K P CHERIYA KHADER KUTTI KEYI R/AT T M HOUSE POST TELLICHERY JUBILEE ROAD, TIRUVANGAD AMSOM DESOM OF THALASSERY TALUK KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 101

¶19

MS T M SALIHA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, D/O LATE C K P CHERIYA KHADER KUTTI KEYI

¶20

¶21

R/AT T M HOUSE POST TELLICHERY JUBILEE ROAD, TIRUVANGAD AMSOM DESOM OF THALASSERY TALUK KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 101

¶22

MR T M IQBAL AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, D/O LATE C K P CHERIYA KHADER KUTTI KEYI R/AT T M HOUSE, POST TELLICHERY JUBILEE ROAD, TIRUVANGAD AMSOM DESOM OF THALASSERY TALUK KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 101

¶23

MR. A P M KHALIL AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O LATE C K P CHERIYA KHADER KUTTI KEYI R/AT T M HOUSE POST TELLICHERY JUBILEE ROAD, TIRUVANGAD AMSOM DESOM OF THALASSERY TALUK KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 101

¶24

MR. A P M ABDUL REHMAN AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O LATE C K P MAMMOO KEYI R/AT NAMIRA CHETTAMOON POST THALASSERY THALASSERY AMSOM VIDIKKAKAM DESOM OF THALASSERY TALUK KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 101

¶25

MR A P M ABDUL RIYAZ AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O LATE C K P MAMMOO KEYI R/AT NAMIRA CHETTAMOON POST THALASSERY THALASSERY AMSOM VIDIKKAKAM DESOM OF THALASSERY TALUK KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 101

¶26

¶27

MR K M AJITH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O LATE K VADIRAJ RAO R/AT OPP. KURUAMBE RAJARAJESHWARI TEMPLE KALBABI, KODICAL, MANGALURU - 575 006

¶28

... RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. VASANTH V FERNANDES, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; SRI. SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R4 & R5 TO R11)

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.19.4.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA IN O.S.NO.837/2010 ON IA NO.13 ON AN APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW IA NO.13 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

The petitioners are the plaintiffs in a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.837/2010 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada (for short, ' the civil Court '). The petitioners have impugned the civil Court's order dated 19.04.2021. The civil Court by this impugned order has rejected the petitioners' application (I.A.No.13) to place the second and third respondents (the sixth and eighth defendants before the civil Court) ex-parte contending that these respondents - defendants have resisted the petitioners' suit through their attorney acting under the Power of Attorney dated 26.09.2009 and because these respondents have revoked such Power of Attorney they cannot defend the suit.

¶35

The civil Court has rejected this application opining that though the petitioners rely upon letter

¶36

¶37

dated 18.02.2021 to substantiate their case that the power of attorney by these respondents is revoked, the legitimacy of letter dated 18.02.2021 cannot be decided with the parties still to complete their evidence and a decision in this regard could be made only as part of the final adjudication.

¶38

The second respondents are represented by Sri. Vasanth V Fernandes, and Sri. H.Vasudeva Shet, one of three persons who are constituted as attorneys and who has filed vakalath for these respondents, is represented Sri. Shridhar Prabhu, who submits that the power of attorney dated 26.09.2009 executed by the second and third respondents in favour of Sri. H.Vasudeva Shet and two others is coupled with interest and therefore irrevocable; even if the petitioners and the second and third respondent establish the genuineness of the alleged revocation, the rights of the

¶39

¶40

attorney [ies] to contest the petitioners' suit for specific performance in their own right cannot be defeated.

¶41

Sri. Shridhar Prabhu further submits that if the petitioners' request for placing the second and third respondents ex-parte as a consequence of the asserted revocation of the Power of Attorney is accepted, attorneys would be severely prejudiced. When queried, both Sri. Cyril Prasad Pais, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Vasanth V Fernandes, submit that the petition could be disposed of with liberty to Sri. Shridhar Prabhu's clients [the attorney/ies] to file application to implead themselves in their own right to contest the suit and if such application is filed, the civil Court could allow and their clients would not object to the impleadment subject to their respective defences as against the rights asserted by these persons.

¶42

¶43

This Court on an anxious consideration of the circumstance of the case, and because Sri. H.Vasudeva Shet and two others assert rights under sale agreements/power of attorney executed in their favour by the second and third respondents, who have also executed sale agreement relied upon by the petitioners, is of the considered view that they would be proper parties to the proceedings. The participation of the second and third respondents and Sri. H.Vasudeva Shet and two others would enable complete and effective adjudication of all questions inter se . Therefore, this Court is persuaded to accept the submission and dispose of the petition by the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

a. The petition stands disposed of observing that notwithstanding the impugned order or the observations therein, Sri. H.Vasudeva Shet and

¶46

¶47

two others in whose favour of Power of Attorney dated 26.09.2009 is executed shall be at liberty to file application to come on record as additional defendants for vindication of their own rights and to defend the petitioners' case for specific performance.

¶48

b. If such application is filed, the civil Court shall consider the same in the light of the concession now made by the petitioners as also the second and third respondents.

¶49

c. It is needless to observe that all other questions are left open for decision based on the pleadings and evidence.

¶50

SD/- JUDGE

¶51

Mr. a Shashiraj v. Smt. Ramla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. a Shashiraj v. Smt. Ramla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Toufik Ahmed Vs Anand Raj M R

Sayed Baba Jan Vs O L Prabhu

M/S Unicorn Seeds Private Limited Vs Smt N Narayanamma

Sri Liakath Ali Khan Vs Smt Syeda Noor Ziaba

S M Sharmila Rani Vs K Ashok Kumar

Sri C L Venkateshalu Vs Sri L K Padmanabha Kumar