Dismissed

Mrs B v. Prema v Mr B v Shanthakumar

Karnataka HC8 Jan 2021WP/294/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL under Article 226, the High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash an order rejecting an impleading application. The Court held the petitioner should file a separate suit as the proposed defendant purchased the property after the first suit's filing and the present suit seeks a bare injunction.

What did the court decide?

High Court refused to quash the impugned order and directed the petitioner to file a separate suit to implead the proposed defendant.

Mrs B v Prema Vs Mr B v Shanthakumar — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.294 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MRS B V PREMA, D/O LATE VEERABHADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.444-A, SADANANDANAGAR, NGEF LAYOUT, RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD, BENGALURU-560038.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAMANANDA A D, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

MR B V SHANTHAKUMAR, S/O LATE VEERABHADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.615, 50^TH CROSS, 3^RD BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010.

¶13

MRS B V UMA, D/O LATE VEERABHADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.444-A, SADANANDANAGAR, NGEF LAYOUT, RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD, BENGALURU-560038.

¶14

HDFC BANK, R/BY ITS MANAGER, ATM CENTER, NO.615, 50^TH CROSS, 3^RD BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR BRANCH, BENGALURU-560010.

¶15

MR SHANTHILAL H JAIN,

¶16

¶17

S/O LATE HASTIMAL JAIN, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.15 (OLD NO.612), 50^TH CROSS ROAD,3^RD BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. K P THRIMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.12.2020 IN REJECTING THE IMPLEADING APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) R/W SECTION 151 OF C.P.C. BY THE XXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE IN O.S.NO.9307/2019 (CCH-23) VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Petitioner being the plaintiff in an injunctive suit in O.S.No.9307/2019 is at the doors of the writ court for assailing the order dated 23.12.2020, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A, whereby the learned XXV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, has rejected his application in I.A.No.3 filed u/o I Rule 10(2) of CPC, 1908, for impleading the 4^th respondent herein as 4^th defendant to the suit.

¶24

¶25

The 4^th respondent being the proposed defendant

¶26

has entered caveat through his counsel and opposes the Writ Petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which the same has been structured.

¶27

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as the suit is for a decree of bare injunction; it is structured on a premise that the existing respondents herein are the only persons having interest in the subject property; the suit was filed on 19.12.2019 and the subject property has been bought by the 4^th respondent on 4.12.2019 i.e., anterior to the institution of the suit; that being the position, the right course open to the petitioner is to file a separate suit as suggested by the learned Judge of the court below in the impugned order.

¶28

In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioner accordingly.

¶29

¶30

Request of the petitioner that there should be an order

¶31

of status quo till he files a suit as suggested does not need consideration since the learned counsel for respondent No.4 fairly submits that he is not going to dismantle structure in the subject property for a period of four weeks.

¶32

All contentions of the parties are otherwise kept open.

¶33

Costs made easy.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

cbc

Mrs B v. Prema v Mr B v Shanthakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs B v. Prema v Mr B v Shanthakumar

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

Sri Basava Prakash Vs Smt Vimala

T C Nagaraja Vs P Anjinappa

Sri Veerabhadrappa Vs Sri Narayana Swamy

Sadashiva Poojary Vs Narasi Poojarthi

Sri.Wahid Fyzh Khan Vs Sri.J M Srinivsan

Millennium Habitat Owners Association Vs Habitat Splendor Owners Association