Remanded

Sri S Lokesh v. Sri M Rajagopal

Karnataka HC4 Jan 2022WP/16017/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order rejecting an impleadment application in a partition suit. The High Court held the trial court failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Order I Rule 10 CPC to ascertain if the proposed defendant had an interest in the suit property and quashed the rejection order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; matter remanded to trial court to issue notice to proposed defendant No.17 and consider application on merits.

Sri S Lokesh Vs Sri M Rajagopal — Partition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.16017/2019

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.16017/2019 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

SRI. S. LOKESH S/O LATE M.C. SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.25/1, RONAKK BUILDING SIDDAPPA LAYOUT IMMADALLI MAIN ROAD WHITEFIELD POST BENGALURU – 560 066. … PETITIONER (BY Dr. S.V. GIRIKUMAR, ADV.)

¶10

AND :

¶11

SRI. M. RAJAGOPAL S/O LATE MOTAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT: NO.26, JYOTHI NILAYA 9^TH CROSS, GUNDAPPA GOWDA ROAD EJIPURA, VIVEKNAGAR POST BENGALURU – 560 047.

¶12

MR. NAGESH R S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶13

MR. VENKATESH R S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶14

W.P.No.16017/2019

¶15

¶16

MRS. NAGARATHNAMMA D/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶17

MRS. NALINI D/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶18

RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 5 ALL ARE R/AT: NO.2, 1^ST CROSS ROAD EJIPURA, VIVEKNAGAR POST BENGALURU – 560 047.

¶19

MR. NARENDRA S/O LATE MUNIYELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶20

MR. NANDA KUMAR S/O LATE MINIYELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶21

RESPONDENT NO.6 AND 7 ARE R/AT: NO.25, 9^TH CROSS GUNDAPPA GOWDA ROAD EJIPURA, VIVEKNAGAR POST BENGALURU – 560 047.

¶22

MRS. JAYALAKSHMI W/O LATE CHINNAPULAY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶23

MR. MANJESH S/O LATE CHINNAPULAY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶24

MRS. MAJULA KUMARI D/O LATE CHINNAPULAY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶25

RESPONDENT NO.8 TO 10 ARE R/AT NO.32, 9^TH CROSS R.A. ROAD, EJIPURA

¶26

W.P.No.16017/2019

¶27

¶28

VIVEKNAGAR POST BENGALURU – 560 047.

¶29

MRS. R.N. NANDINI W/O. MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT NO.2800, MUNISHWARA NILAYA 18^TH B MAIN, 5^TH CROSS KAKAYAPPA HOUSE HAL 2^ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 008.

¶30

MRS. SAVITHA W/O MR.NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO.402, A1 SHARAVATHI BLOCK NATIONAL GAMES VILLAGE KORMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 047.

¶31

MRS.SUREKA W/O KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.135/9, FIRST FLOOR 14^TH CROSS, 6^TH C MAIN J.P.NAGAR 3^RD PHASE BENGALURU – 560 075.

¶32

MR. S. ARAVIND S/O LATE SRINIVASA M.C. AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.85 8^TH MAIN, 4^TH CROSS MALLESHPALYA BENGALURU – 560 075. ..RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI. UMESH B.N. ADV. FOR R1. R2, R6, R7 AND R11; SRI. A.C. BALARAJ, ADV. FOR R8 TO R10; SRI. GANAPATI BHAT VAJRALLI, ADV. FOR R12 TO R14)

¶34

W.P.No.16017/2019

¶35

¶36

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.03.2019 PASSED BY THE XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY ON I.A.NO.8 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER I RULE 10 OF THE CPC IN O.S.NO.4180/2015 VIDE ANNEXURE – “A”.

¶37

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶38

O R D E R

¶39

Heard.

¶40

Aggrieved by the rejection of his application

¶41

under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead M/s. Astro Land Developers, Bengaluru-35 as defendant No.17, the plaintiff in O.S.No.4180/2015 on the file of XXXIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City has preferred the above petition.

¶42

The petitioner filed O.S.No.4180/2015 against the respondents for partition and separate possession of his 1/5^th share in the suit schedule A, B and C properties and for declaration etc. Pending the suit, the petitioner filed IA No.8 under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead M/s. Astro Land Developers, Bengaluru as defendant No.17 on the ground that

¶43

W.P.No.16017/2019

¶44

¶45

defendant No.3 entered into the registered Joint Development Agreement dated 01.09.2014 in respect of two of the properties.

¶46

Defendant Nos.1, 3, 8, 9 and 13 contested the application. The trial Court even before issuing notice of application to the proposed defendant No.17 by the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 13.03.2019 rejected the application on the ground that proposed defendant No.17 is not related to the suit schedule properties and not a coparcener, therefore the application is not maintainable.

¶47

Neither the plaintiff nor the contesting defendants disputed that defendant Nos.3 and 5 entered in to Joint Development Agreement with the proposed defendant No.17 in respect of two of the suit schedule properties. Whether any interest is created in favour of the proposed defendant No.17 in the suit schedule properties by Joint Development Agreement and thereby he becomes proper party or necessary party, ought to have been decided by the trial Court.

¶48

W.P.No.16017/2019

¶49

¶50

Order I Rule 10 of CPC requires joining necessary party or proper party to the suit at any stage of the suit. To ascertain that the trial Court ought to have issued notice of the application to the proposed defendant No.17. Under the circumstances the trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by Order I Rule 10 of CPC. Therefore, the order is unsustainable. The petition is allowed.

¶51

The impugned order at Annexure-A dated 13.03.2019 passed on IA No.8 is hereby quashed.

¶52

The matter is remanded to the trial Court. The trial Court shall issue notice of the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to the proposed defendant No.17 and then consider the same on it’s merit.

¶53

Since the suit is more than 6 years old, the trial Court shall carryout the said exercise as expeditiously as possible.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

PKN

Sri S Lokesh v. Sri M Rajagopal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S Lokesh v. Sri M Rajagopal

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

P R Ramachandra Rao Vs Smt S R Nagamani

Manjegowda Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

H.D. Devaraj Vs H.D. Shivananda

Muzahid Pasha @ Muju Vs State of Karnataka by

Prasanna Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Lokesh Y S Vs State of Karnataka