Dismissed

Vijayakumar S Durgad v. Sri Mallikarjun Swamy Hiremath

Karnataka HC18 Dec 2023WP/2494/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order rejecting an application to implead the petitioner as an additional defendant in a representative suit concerning temple administration. The High Court rejected the petition, holding that since plaintiffs were representing all devotees, the petitioner was neither a necessary nor proper party.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was rejected; the application for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC was not allowed.

Vijayakumar S Durgad Vs Sri Mallikarjun Swamy… — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:46131 WP No. 2494 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 2494 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

VIJAYAKUMAR S DURGAD S/O SHAKARAPPA SIDDAPPA DURGAD AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT HORTHI VILLAGE INDI TALUK, VIJAYPURA DISTRICT-586117.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. NITHIN GOWDA K.C., ADV. FOR SRI PRASANNA KUMAR P., ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by A K CHANDRIKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI MALLIKARJUN SWAMY HIREMATH S/O LATE NEELAKANTAIAH HIREMATH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.6/A BLOCK ALIG FLAT, NANDINI LAYOUT BENGALURU-560096.

¶15

VISHWANATH HIREMATH S/O MANTAYYA HIREMATH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.908/A 7^TH MAIN, 7^TH CROSS PRAKASH NAGAR, BENGALURU-560021.

¶16

RUDRESH

¶17

S/O LATE PHALAKSHAPPA AGED 46 YEARS R/AT NO.2, 1^ST A CROSS MUDALAPALYA, NVG NAGAR BENGALURU-560072.

¶18

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:46131 WP No. 2494 of 2021

¶19

SRI JAGADGURU MURAGARAJENDRA BRUHANMATHA

¶20

BY ITS MATHADTHIPATHI P B ROAD, CHITRADURGA-577501.

¶21

SRI SRIMAN NIRANJANA JAGADGURU SHIVAMURTHY MURUGARAJENDRA SWAMIGALU @ SRI SHIVAMURTHY SHARANARU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS MATHADHIPATHI OF SRI JAGADGURU MURAGARAJENDRA BRUHANMATHA P B ROAD, CHITRADURGA-577501.

¶22

SRI S K BASAVARAJAN S/O KARISIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS SRI JAGADGURU MURAGARAJENDRA BRUHANMATHA PA HOLDER OF 5^TH RESPONDENT AND ADMINISTRATOR OF 4^TH RESPONDENT PB ROAD, CHITRADURGA-577501.

¶23

SRI SARPABHUSANA SHIVAYOGIGALA MUTT TRUST KEMPEGOWDA CIRCLE BENGALURU-560009 BY ITS PRESIDENT.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. B.S. MURALI, ADV. FOR R4 AND R5 R2, R6 AND R7 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED V/O DATED 06.04.2021 SERVICE OF NOTICE IN RESPECT OF R3 IS H/S)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.11.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-56) IN O.S.NO.5057/2007 THEREBY REJECTING THE I.A.NO.XIV FILED BY THE APPLICANT/ PETITIONER SEEKING TO IMPLEAD HIMSELF AS DEFENDANT NO.5 (PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXUREA) AND CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE I.A.NO.XIV FILED BY THE APPLICANT/PETITIONER HEREIN IN O.S.NO.5057/2007 (PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-D.

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:46131 WP No. 2494 of 2021

¶28

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The petitioner/impleading applicant in

¶31

O.S.No.5057/2007 on the file of LV Additional City Civil

¶32

and Sessions Judge, Bangalore is before this Court, aggrieved by order dated 09.11.2020 rejecting I.A.No.14 filed under Order I Rule 10 of CPC to come on record as additional defendant.

¶33

2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Nithin Gowda K.C., for

¶34

Sri.Prasanna Kumar P., learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel Sri.B.S.Murali for Respondents No.4 and 5 Perused the writ petition papers.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that suit of the respondents/plaintiffs is one for a judgment and decree to declare that when the second defendant is ceased to be Mathadhipathi of first defendant-Mutt and to declare that the second defendant is not competent to deal with or to interfere with the management and administration of 4^th

¶36

¶37

NC: 2023:KHC:46131 WP No. 2494 of 2021

¶38

defendant-Trust and its properties. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner being devotee of the first defendant-Mutt is an interested person. Learned counsel would submit that the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs is a representative suit. When a representative suit is filed, any person could come on record as interested person. Learned counsel would further submit that the impleadment of petitioner as additional defendant would assist the Court in proper appreciation of dispute between the parties. The presence of the petitioner would aid the court to get additional material. Learned counsel would further submit that in a representative suit, interested party could come on record at any stage of the proceedings. Further, learned counsel placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1958 SC 886 in the case of RAZIA BEGUM v/s SAHEBZADI ANWAR BEGUM AND OTHERS would submit that declaration would affect not only the parties to the suit, but would generations to come. Thus, he would pray for allowing the writ petition, consequently allowing I.A.No.14.

¶39

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:46131 WP No. 2494 of 2021

¶40

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and

¶41

on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order. Moreover, the impugned order neither perverse nor suffers from any material irregularity so as to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶42

The suit as filed by respondents/plaintiffs is a representative suit under Order I Rule 8 of CPC. The plaintiffs claims that they are devotees of the first defendant. When the devotees have already initiated proceedings under the above stated suit and when they are in a position to protect the interest of all the devotees who are interested in first defendant-Mutt, the presence of petitioner as additional defendant to the suit would not be necessary. The petitioner/impleading applicant is neither necessary nor proper party to the suit. The suit filed in representative capacity by plaintiffs would not require the presence of petitioner. Therefore, I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. The

¶43

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:46131 WP No. 2494 of 2021

¶44

decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court relied on by the petitioner would have no application to the facts of the present case wherein it is held that result of a declaratory decree on the question of status, affects not only the parties actually before the Court, but generations to come. The devotee/plaintiffs have sought declaration on behalf of

¶45

all the devotees in representative capacity. In a representative suit, representatives of a group shall represent. Where there are numerous persons having the same interest in one foot, one or more or such persons may sue on behalf of or for the benefit of all persons so interested. All persons having interest need not come before the Court.

¶46

There is no ground to interfere with the impugned

¶47

order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60

Vijayakumar S Durgad v. Sri Mallikarjun Swamy Hiremath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayakumar S Durgad v. Sri Mallikarjun Swamy Hiremath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V Girija Vs a Jalajakshamma

P.V. Shashikanth Vs Ramakrishnegowda M Y

Sri S C Chenappaji Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramya S Vs Mangalore Teachers Co. Operative Credit Society Ltd.

S Ravi Kumar Vs B T Yashwanth

L G Dinesha Vs Sridhara Udupa L S