Dismissed

Varghese M Jayan v. Mar Gregorios Orthodox Church

Karnataka HC6 Apr 2022WP/5632/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by a plaintiff challenging an order dismissing his application to implead BBMP officers as respondents in an original suit involving a dispute over permanent injunction and property interference was dismissed as devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merits.

Varghese M Jayan Vs Mar Gregorios Orthodox Church — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.5632 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

VARGHESE M. JAYAN S/O LATE V. MATHAI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT #15, 2^ND CROSS, MR GARDEN, V. NAGARAHALLI, R.T.NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 032.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. PRAJITH C., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

MAR GREGORIOS ORTHODOX CHURCH

¶12

5^TH MAIN, PAMPA EXTENSION, KEMPAPURA, HEBBAL, BENGALURU-560 024. REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT AND VICAR REV. SANTHOSH SAMUEL.

¶13

THE PRESIDENT AND VICAR

¶14

MAR GREGORIOS ORTHODOX CHURCH

¶15

5^TH MAIN, PAMPA EXTENSION, KEMPAPURA, HEBBAL, BENGALURU-560 024.

¶16

THE TREASURER

¶17

MAR GREGORIOS ORTHODOX CHURCH

¶18

¶19

5^TH MAIN, PAMPA EXTENSION, KEMPAPURA, HEBBAL, BENGALURU-560 024.

¶20

THE SECRETARY MAR GREGORIOS ORTHODOX CHURCH 5^TH MAIN, PAMPA EXTENSION, KEMPAPURA, HEBBAL, BENGALURU-560 024.

¶21

H.G. D.R. ABRAHAM MAR SERAPHIM DIOCESAN METROPOLITAN BISHOP’S HOUSE #1, MALANKARA VEEDHI, DODDA GUBBI POST, BENGALURU-560 077.

¶22

MORAN MAR BASELIOS MARTHOMA PAULOSE II MALANKARA ORTHODOX CHURCH CATHOLICATE PALACE DEVALOKAM P.O., MUTTAMBALAM, KOTTAYAM, KERALA-686 004.

¶23

AALAYA

¶24

REP. BY BINU ISAAC CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES STAR JUNCTION, 2^ND FLOOR, ADAMS POWER, KOTTAYAM, KERALA-686 001.

¶25

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HEAD OFFICE, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002.

¶26

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BBMP-KODIGEHALLI SUB-DIVISION, 9^TH MAIN ROAD, D-BLOCK,

¶27

¶28

SAHAKARANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 092.

¶29

….RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI. JOSEPH ANIL KUMAR. A, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19^TH JANUARY, 2022 PASSED ON IA.12 FILED UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) OF THE CIVIL PRODURE CODE IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.8112 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY VIDE ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC.

¶32

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

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

This writ petition is filed by the plaintiff in Original Suit No.8112 of 2018 on the file of the XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’), challenging the order dated 19^th January, 2022, dismissing the application IA.12.

¶35

Relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition are that, the plaintiff has filed suit against defendants seeking permanent injunction restraining defendants and their supporters from interfering with the suit schedule property. Pursuant to the resolution dated 03^rd June, 2018 in the General

¶36

¶37

Body Meeting, the suit is contested by the defendants by filing written statement. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff has filed IA.12 under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking to implead the Commissioner, BBMP as defendant No.8 and Assistant Executive Engineer, BBMP, Kodigehalli SubDivision, Byatarayanapura as defendant No.9 in the suit. The said application was resisted by defendants. The trial Court, after considering material on record by order dated 19^th January, 2022, dismissed the application. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this writ petition.

¶38

I have heard Sri. Prajith C., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Joseph Anilkumar A., learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

¶39

Sri. Prajith C., learned counsel appearing for petitioner contended that the finding recorded by the trial Court, dismissing the application IA.12 is bad in law. He further submits that the proposed defendants have issued notice to defendants with regard to illegal construction, for which

¶40

¶41

defendants have replied. Therefore, presence of proposed defendants was required for effective adjudication of the suit.

¶42

Per contra, Sri. Joseph Anilkumar A., learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 sought to justify the impugned order passed by the trial Court and submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court, dismissing the application IA.12 filed by the plaintiff is just and proper which does not call for any interference in this writ petition.

¶43

In the light of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully considered the writ papers and the finding recorded by the trial Court. On perusal of the plaint, the prayer made in the suit reads as under:

¶44

a) Grant an order of Permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their workmen, servants, henchmen and/ or any persons claimed through or under them, etc., from carrying out the decisions taken in the GBM held on 03.06.2018;

¶45

b) Grant an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their workmen, servants, henchmen and/or any persons claimed through or under them, etc., from carrying out further construction work in Schedule ‘B’

¶46

¶47

Property which is likely to endanger/damage or cause interference or disturbance to the plaintiff and the other members or the 1^st defendant;

¶48

c) Grant an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their workmen, servant, henchmen and/or any persons claimed through or under them, etc. from carrying out any other works accord in schedule ‘B’ property which is likely to endanger/damage or interference or disturbance to the plaintiff and the other members of the 1^st defendant;

¶49

d) to award costs of these proceedings;

¶50

e) pass such other order(s) as may be deemed fit, to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶51

Undisputably, the relief sought for by the petitioner is with regard to permanent injunction restraining defendants and their supporters claimed through, from carrying out the decision taken in the General Body Meeting held on 03^rd June, 2018. The entire dispute revolves around the action taken by defendants against the petitioner as per the General Body Meeting held on 03^rd June, 2018. Therefore, in order to resolve the lis between the parties, the presence of proposed defendants i.e.,

¶52

¶53

Commissioner and Assistant Executive Engineer of the BBMP, cannot be considered. I have also considered the finding record by the trial Court, wherein, the trial Court, after considering the material on record, by a detailed order has arrived at conclusion that the plaintiff has not made out the case for allowing IA.12, impleading the Officers of BBMP as parties to the suit and has also come to the conclusion that even in the absence of the proposed defendants, the suit could be disposed of. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the find recorded by the trial Court is just and proper which does not call for any interference in this writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

ARK

Varghese M Jayan v. Mar Gregorios Orthodox Church

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varghese M Jayan v. Mar Gregorios Orthodox Church

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

Smt. Venkatamma Vs T Kumar

Sri Amarchand Vs Sri M Narayanappa

Shri Shridhar Vs Smt Akbari Banu

Sri Mahimahesh Vs Sri Swamy

Smt. Puttagangamma @ Gangamma Vs Smt. Neelamma

Puttanarasamma Vs M G Pandurangaiah