The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 227 challenging the trial Court's order rejecting an application to implead the petitioner as a defendant in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction.
No specific relief granted as the writ petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.3077 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN
SRI SHATRUNJAYA SHETTY S/O NEMIRAJA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT JAIN COMPOUND N G ROAD, ATTAVARA MANGALURU-575 001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MAHESH KIRAN SHETTY S, ADVOCATE)
AND
….RESPONDENTS
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17TH JANUARY, 2022 PASSED ON IA.NO.IV FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN ORIGINAL SUIT.NO. 924 OF 2021 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MANGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-F.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
This Writ Petition is filed by the proposed applicant/Defendant No.2 in Original Suit No.924 of 2021 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada, challenging the order dated 14th January, 2022.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
Perusal of the writ papers would indicate that the plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 have filed suit against the defendants seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with the suit schedule property. In the said suit, petitioners herein/impleading applicants have filed application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and sought to implead as defendants and the said application was resisted by the plaintiffs. The trial Court, by the
3
impugned order dated 14th January, 2022 rejected IA.4 filed by the petitioner herein and being aggrieved by the same, the impleading applicant has presented this writ petition.
I have heard Sri Mahesh Kiran Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who contended that the impugned order passed by the trial Court requires interference as the impleading applicants have the right over the suit schedule property and the said aspect of the matter has not been considered by the trial Court.
In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully considered the impugned order passed by the trial Court and the grounds urged in the Writ Petition. It is not in dispute that the suit is filed for permanent injunction and the prayer made by the plaintiff that the defendants are interfering with the suit schedule property. Taking into consideration the finding recorded by the trial Court, I am of the view that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the IA.4 filed by the petitioner herein and therefore, no interference is called for insofar as this Writ Petition is concerned. Perusal of the order sheet of the trial Court in Original Suit No.983 of 2021
4
produced at Annexure-H would reveal that the plaintiffs herein have filed suit against the impleading applicants/petitioners herein, are seeking relief of declaration with consequential relief of injunction. Dismissal of this Writ Petition would not come in the way of petitioners herein to take appropriate plea before the Original Suit No.983 of 2021. However, orders passed by the trial Court in Original Suit No.924 of 2021 binds the parties to the suit in the very same proceedings.
Sd/JUDGE
lnn
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial Court erred in rejecting the application to implead the petitioner as a defendant under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial Court's refusal to allow impleadment in a suit for permanent injunction.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
SHATRUNJAYA SHETTY
JAMES D'SOUZA
ALICE D'SOUZA
E.S. INDIRESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
