Petitioner sought to implead herself in an appeal filed by a neighbor challenging a municipal confirmation order. The High Court held she was a proper and necessary party due to her property rights and role in initiating proceedings.
Impugned order dated 27.01.2023 set aside; I.A.No.2 dated 17.01.2023 allowed to implead petitioner.
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 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 15292 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. MEENAKSHI W/O NANJUNDARAJE URS AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO 811/1A, F-9, 10TH CROSS, RAMANUJA ROAD, KILLE MOHALLA, MYSURU-570004.
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT. MAMATHA M R., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND:
S/O LATE PUTTAMADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO 811/1A, F-9, 10TH CROSS, RAMANUJA ROAD, KILLE MOHALLA, MYSURU-570004.
…RESPONDENTS
(R1, R2, R3 AND R4 - SERVED)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER FOUND AT ANNX-A ORDER DTD 27.1.2023 IN M.A.NO.10/2023 ON I.A DTD 17.1.2023 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU AND ALLOW THIS WP WITH COST AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking prayer to quash the order dated 27.01.2023 passed on I.A.No.2 dated 17.01.2023 in M.A.No.10/2023 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru.
NC: 2023:KHC:30115 WP No. 15292 of 2023
the petitioner and respondent No.1 property by causing damage to the common wall. Hence, the petitioner herein was compelled to file a complaint with respondent No.2-The Commissioner, Mysuru City Corporation, Mysuru alleging that the respondent No.2 is putting up illegal construction. It is further averred that when respondent No.2-Corporation failed to take action on the representation submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner has filed O.S.No.1430/2021 seeking prayer to declare that the Wall existing in between the house of petitioner and respondent No.1 herein on the eastern side of the petitioner's house is a common wall for the house of the petitioner and respondent No.1 and further prayer to declare that the defendant/respondent No.1 has no right of whatsoever to cause any damage to the said Wall. The said suit ended in compromise. In the said compromise, respondent No.1Judgment Debtor has agreed that he would restore the said common wall to its original position by taking necessary repair works, however the respondent No.1-Judgment Debtor in O.S.No.1430/2021 has failed to adhere to terms of compromise, which has compelled the petitioner to file Execution Petition in Ex.No.125/2022.
NC: 2023:KHC:30115 WP No. 15292 of 2023
the petitioner submits that the Appellate Court has committed grave error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner seeking to implead herself as a party to the proceedings in M.A.No.10/2023 as it is the petitioner who has filed the complaint before respondent No.2-Corporation about putting up of illegal construction by respondent No.1 and on the basis of
NC: 2023:KHC:30115 WP No. 15292 of 2023
her complaint, the Corporation has issued notice and subsequently passed an order of confirmation. Hence, the petitioner is a proper and necessary party in the appeal as her property rights are involved. It is submitted that respondent No.1 herein was the defendant in O.S.No.1430/2021 who has agreed in the compromise that he would restore the common wall to its original position and without doing so, he has started putting up illegal construction contrary to the sanction plan and when Corporation has taken action against him without making the petitioner herein as a party has filed appeal, assailing the confirmation order passed by respondent No.2. Hence, the petition is proper and necessary party in the appeal. It is submitted that the Appellate Court has not considered these aspects while rejecting the application. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a proper and necessary party in the above appeal as her rights which have been culminated in the compromise decree would be affected if she is not made a party to the proceedings pending before the Appellate Court. Hence, she seeks to allow the petition.
absent. Hence, they are placed ex-parte.
NC: 2023:KHC:30115 WP No. 15292 of 2023
and perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein has filed O.S.No.1430/2021 against respondent No.1 herein seeking prayer to declare that the Wall existing between the house of plaintiff i.e., petitioner herein and respondent No.1 on the eastern side of the petitioner’s house is a common wall for the house of the petitioner and respondent No.1 and further prayer to declare that respondent No.1 has no right whatsoever to cause any damage to the said Wall and other prayers. It is also not in dispute that the said suit ended in compromise wherein, respondent No.1 has agreed that he would restore the said common wall to its original position by taking necessary repair works. After the disposal of said suit, the respondent No.1 has failed to adhere to the terms of compromise, which had compelled the petitioner herein to file Execution Petition in Ex.No.125/2022. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has filed complaint before respondent No.2- Corporation, alleging that respondent No.1 is putting up construction contrary to the sanction plan and based on the said complaint, respondent No.2 has initiated proceedings against respondent No.1 and passed order under
NC: 2023:KHC:30115 WP No. 15292 of 2023
Section 321(3) of the KMC Act, which was assailed by respondent No.1 appeal. Admittedly, respondent No.1 has challenged the order dated 21.11.2022 passed by respondent No.2 under Section 321(3) of the KMC Act in M.A.No.10/2023 without making the petitioner as a party to the proceedings.
NC: 2023:KHC:30115 WP No. 15292 of 2023
recognized in decree. Hence, to determine the dispute in appeal, the presence of the petitioner is necessary to adjudicate the issue involved and to avoid further proceedings. Hence, the petitioner herein is a proper and necessary party to the proceedings initiated by respondent No.1. If the application for impleading is allowed, no harm or prejudice would be caused to respondent No.1 and if rejected it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings between the parties on same subject matter.
For the reasons recorded supra, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.01.2023 passed in M.A.No.10/2023 is set aside. I.A.No.2 dated 17.01.2023 filed by the petitioner herein is allowed.
Ordered accordingly.
No order to costs.
Sd/JUDGE
SMJ
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner who filed the initial complaint and is a beneficiary under a compromise decree is a proper and necessary party to the appeal of the alleged violator.
Whether the Appellate Court erred in rejecting the application to implead the petitioner as a party in the proceedings.
Whether allowing impleadment avoids multiplicity of proceedings and adjudicates the dispute efficiently.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
SMT. MEENAKSHI W/O NANJUNDARAJE
SHIVARUDRAPPA
THE COMMISSIONER MYSURU CITY CORPORATION
THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER ZONE OFFICE-1 MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
THE JOINT DIRECTOR TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DEPARTMENT MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
