Allowed

Smt Sunitha v. Smt B N Asha

Karnataka HC15 Sept 2021WP/42016/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227, the High Court of Karnataka allowed an application to implead a respondent as a third party. The court held that allegations made against a non-party constitute such necessity as to entitle that person to defend themselves, even if no specific relief is claimed against them.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 26.08.2015 dismissed was set aside; application for impleading allowed; plaint amendment directed within 15 days.

Smt Sunitha Vs Smt B N Asha — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

WP NO.42016/2015

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.42016/2015 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SUNITHA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS W/O. LATE P.NARASIMHA MURTHY R/AT IN THE GROUND FLOOR PORTION OF PROPERTY NO.252, MANJUNATHA NILAYA NO.51, KAR MOBILE ROAD 1ST BLOCK, 1ST STAGE, PEENYA, BENGALURU - 560 058

¶10

SRI BHASKAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O. SRI. T.GOVINDA R/AT NO.252, PORTION OF FIRST FLOOR FIRST BLOCK, FIRST STAGE PEENYA BANGALORE - 560 058

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI K.K.VASANTH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SMT. B.N.ASHA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS D/O. LATE P.NARASIMHA MURTHY R/AT NO.252, 1ST BLOCK PEENYA BANGALORE - 560 058. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI S. VISWESWARAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER

¶16

WP NO.42016/2015

¶17

¶18

DATED 26.08.2015 PASSED ON IMPLEADING APPLICATION IN O.S.NO.4054/2009 BY THE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (CCH-27) VIDE ANNEXURE - K.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioners are before this Court seeking for setting aside the order dated 26.08.2015 passed on impleading application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC by the XII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru.

¶22

The suit in O.S.No.4054/2009 had been filed seeking for a direction to the defendant therein to quit, vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the schedule premises to the plaintiff-respondent herein as also for the payment of arrears of rent.

¶23

An application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC had been filed by the plaintiff for amendment, by virtue of which paragraph-4(a) was sought to be added. The said amendment came to be allowed and the plaint also came to be amended.

¶24

WP NO.42016/2015

¶25

¶26

The petitioner No.1 on going through the averment in paragraph 4(a) of amended plaint realised that there are several allegations which have been made against her. In order to defend herself as regards the said allegations, she filed an application for impleading herself.

¶27

The same came to be opposed by the plaintiff contending that she is not a necessary party to determine the issues involved in the suit.

¶28

The trial Court vide impugned order dated 26.08.2015 has dismissed the said application on the ground that a similar application had been filed in O.S.No.3831/2009, O.S.No.3928/2009, O.S.No.4053/2009 and O.S.No.4054/2009 have been rejected on 11.01.2013.

¶29

The trial Court further held that that the said application is filed only to protract or delay the proceedings, there being no relief claimed against

¶30

WP NO.42016/2015

¶31

¶32

the impleading applicant. It is aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶33

Sri K.K. Vasanth, learned counsel for the petitioners

¶34

would submit that when the allegations which have been made against the person in a suit, where she

¶35

is not a party, such person ought to be made available an opportunity to defend the said allegations. Otherwise, the false and baseless allegations will continue to be in the records in suit, which could be considered by the general public to be true, in the absence of denial or finding thereon. Therefore, he submits that this aspect has not been taken into consideration by the trial Court. Merely because no relief has been sought for, it cannot be said that petitioner No.1 is not interested in the allegations made and as such, petitioner No.1 ought to have been impleaded in the proceedings.

¶36

Sri S.Visweswaraiah, learned counsel for the respondent would however submit that since earlier

¶37

WP NO.42016/2015

¶38

¶39

an application in connected suits and the present suit had been dismissed and several suits are pending between the parties, there is no requirement to implead the petitioner No.1 as a party. The application has been filed at the stage of evidence to only delay the proceedings and as such, the trial Court has rightly come to a conclusion that impleading the petitioner No.1 is only to protract the proceedings. Therefore, he submits that this Court is not required to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court.

¶40

Heard Sri K.K. Vasanth, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.Visweswaraiah, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the papers.

¶41

On the basis of submissions made, the points which are required to be determined by this Court is:

¶42

1. Whether a person can be impleaded in a proceeding even though there is no relief which is claimed against such person, if allegations against character

¶43

WP NO.42016/2015

¶44

¶45

and otherwise are made in the plaint against such person?

¶46

2. What order?

¶47

12. Answer to Point No.1 : Whether a person can be impleaded in a proceeding even though there is no relief which is claimed against such person, if allegations against character and otherwise are made in the plaint against such person?

¶48

12.1. The purpose of filing of pleadings in the plaint or in the written statement is to place on record the issues in dispute between the parties. On the basis of the said pleadings, issues are to be framed by the Court, evidence has to be led and judgment has to be passed. Essentially, the averments made in the pleadings are to place the lis between

¶49

the parties on record, on identification of issues which is made by the Court by framing the said issues.

¶50

12.2. When the plaint is filed, the defendant avails an opportunity to file written statement in order to counter the allegations made in the

¶51

WP NO.42016/2015

¶52

¶53

plaint. This being so for the reason that we are in an adversarial system of jurisprudence, where both the parties are required to be provided an opportunity to make allegations and to defend the allegations made against them.

¶54

12.3. This is a peculiar case, where allegations in the plaint have been made against the person who is not a party to the proceedings.

¶55

12.4. A perusal of paragraph-4(a) to the amended plaint, clearly and categorically would indicate that there are serious allegations which are made against the character of the applicant in impleading application, which may or may not be defended by the defendant in the said suit.

¶56

12.5. Be that as it may, when a person takes notice of any allegation made against that

¶57

WP NO.42016/2015

¶58

¶59

person, the said person could either keep quite or oppose the same in order to defend himself. On the basis of allegations made against such person, he could also seek to implead in the proceedings and place true facts on record.

¶60

12.6. It is for this purpose that the petitioner has apparently filed an application to implead herself. However, the same has been surprisingly opposed by the plaintiff who himself made allegations against the petitioner No.1.

¶61

12.7. The plaintiff having made such allegations against the impleading applicant, it is not permissible for the plaintiff to deny an opportunity to the said impleading applicant to defend herself against the allegations made against her. If that be so, the plaintiff ought not to have made allegations at all.

¶62

WP NO.42016/2015

¶63

¶64

The plaintiff cannot seek to get away with making allegations and denying an opportunity to the person against whom the allegations are made.

¶65

12.8. In view thereof, I answer the point raised by holding that even if no relief has been sought for against the particular person, the allegations having been made against that person in the plaint or in the written statement. Such person, in my considered opinion, would be a proper and necessary party to the proceedings to the limited extent of defending any allegations made against such person in such proceedings.

¶66

13. Answer to Point No.2 : What Order?

¶67

13.1. In the present suit there being allegations made against the impleading applicant, in my considered opinion, she would be entitled to counter the allegations made against her.

¶68

WP NO.42016/2015

¶69

¶70

13.2. As such, the order dated 26.08.2015 passed on impleading application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC by the XII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru is set aside.

¶71

13.3. The application under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC under Order 1 Rule 10(2) filed by the petitioner No.1 herein vide Annexure – H is allowed.

¶72

13.4. The plaintiff is directed to carry out the necessary amendment to the plaint within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order, the trial Court to proceed therefrom.

¶73

Sd/JUDGE

¶74

KTY

Smt Sunitha v. Smt B N Asha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sunitha v. Smt B N Asha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/ S Vinayaka & Company Vs Sri Jagadguru Renukadi Panchacharya

Sri. Vijayamurthy Vs Sri. C Ramakrishnappa

Mr. Gopichand Ballal M Vs Smt. Annapurna

Sri Ramachandraiah K B Vs the State of Karnataka

H.R. Rajanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H Muniyappa Vs Sri Jayanna