Dismissed

Mr Ravindranath Bajpe v. Mr Rajendra Devadiga

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2022WP/10889/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 seeking quashing of the civil court's rejection of an application to add a petitioner as a necessary party. The High Court held the civil court's reasoning was just and proper.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking quashing of the impugned order and to allow the inclusion of the petitioner as a necessary party was rejected.

Mr Ravindranath Bajpe Vs Mr Rajendra Devadiga — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.10889/2022 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

MR RAVINDRANATH BAJPE S/O LATE K KOCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT KALLADY MOODU HOUSE MALAVOOR VILLAGE BAJPE POST, MANGALURU D K DISTRICT-574 142.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. K RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

MR RAJENDRA DEVADIGA S/O LATE K KOCHAPPA DEVADIGA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.1-62 (OLD D.NO.1-37), MALAVOOR VILLAGE BAJPE POST, MANGALURU D K DISTRICT-574142.

¶12

THE ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)

¶13

¶14

KAVOOR SUB-DIVISION MESCOM KAVOOR MANGALURU-575015.

¶15

... RESPONDENTS

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.12.2021 PASSED IN IA NO.6/2021 IN O.S.NO.557/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MANGALURU D.K. DISTRICT (PRODUCED VIDE ANNX-A) TO THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE IA NO.6/2021 AS PRAYED FOR.

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner's application [I.A. No.VI] under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in O.S. No.557/2017 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada [for short, the civil Court' ] is rejected by the impugned order dated 14.12.2021.

¶20

¶21

The first respondent's suit in O.S. No.557/2017 against the second respondent-defendant is for permanent injunction restraining the offices of the second respondent from disconnecting the electricity supply to the immovable property detailed in schedule-A appended to the plaint. The petitioner has filed his application to come on record that the first respondent, who is his brother, has filed the suit relying upon manipulated documents to obtain electricity connection for the subject property in his name and he has filed a complaint against him with the jurisdictional Police. As such, he must be a necessary party to the proceedings.

¶22

The civil Court has rejected this application observing that the first respondent has not claimed any relief against the petitioner and the counter allegations between the petitioner and the first respondent would not be germane for a decision in the present suit. The

¶23

¶24

civil Court has also observed that the general rule that a plaintiff in a suit is dominus litis must have precedence. The civil Court's reasoning, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is just and proper and does not call for any interference.

¶25

Hence, the petition stands rejected.

¶26

Sd/JUDGE

¶27

AN*

Mr Ravindranath Bajpe v. Mr Rajendra Devadiga

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Ravindranath Bajpe v. Mr Rajendra Devadiga

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

Sri G Janardhan Reddy Vs Mr Venkatesh

Gangappa Vs Shivanna

Smt Gowramma Vs Sri Thippeswamy

Smt. Nagamma Vs Smt. M. Pushpa

Live Sports 365 Pvt. Ltd., Vs Nike India Pvt. Ltd.

Dr K N Satish Vs Nagson and Co.