The High Court allowed the writ petition challenging the trial court's order adding the petitioner as plaintiff no.2 instead of defendant no.2 via impleadment. Intervening in an ejectment suit as a tenant objecting to termination.
Petitioner impleaded as defendant no.2 instead of plaintiff no.2; impugned order quashed; suit to continue.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6214 WP No. 101880 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 101880 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SHRI PARASHURAM S/. HANUMANTSA DHONGADI, AGE ABOUT:52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. PRAGATI COLONY, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DT- DHARWAD-580020.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed byCHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2024.04.10 10:26:17 +0530
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.K. KULKARNI & SRI SANTOSH A. BIRANGI, ADVOCATES FOR C/R1; R2 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED: 13-022024 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE HUBBALLI, ON I.A. NO.II IN O.S. NO.219/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-E, AS NULL AND VOID.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. This writ petition is filed seeking for following
reliefs.
petitioner submits that O.S.no.219/2023 on file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi was filed by respondent no.1plaintiff against respondent no.2-defendant for ejectment. It was submitted, petitioner and respondent no.1-plaintiff were joint owners of three storied commercial building constructed in CTS no.3333 of Ward no.1 of New Myadar Oni, Hubballi, which was in possession of respondent no.2 as tenant. Said suit was filed by respondent no.1 on
ground that he was co-owner of premises and tenancy was terminated. It was submitted, in said suit, petitioner had filed I.A.no.2 under Order I Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure for impleading. Said application was opposed. Under impugned order, trial Court has allowed application in part and instead of impleading petitioner as defendant, added petitioner as plaintiff no.2. It was submitted, when application is filed for being impleaded as defendant, trial Court would not be justified in impleading party as plaintiff and therefore, sought for quashing same.
Ors reported in (2004) 4 SCC 178, there was no prohibition against one co-owner maintaining a petition for ejectment of tenant and therefore, impleadment of another co-owner would not be necessary. It was submitted, even in case such co-owner sought impleadment, he could not be impleaded as respondent, as there was no conflicting cause of action and he could not have competing interest against plaintiff and therefore, trial Court had rightly added applicant as plaintiff no.2 and said order did not call for interference.
papers.
except stating that impleading applicant cannot have competing interest against plaintiff and to avoid technical issue, he would be impleaded as plaintiff no.2, no other
reasons are assigned. In view of categorical assertion by applicant that issuance of notice of termination without his consent was illegal would indicate that applicant is having competing interest insofar as ejectment. But on perusal of plaint in Annexure-A, it is seen that apart from ejectment, plaintiff is also seeking for recovery of arrears which he could maintain without need for impleadment and objection by petitioner herein would be irrelevant as petitioner has stated that tenant was paying 50% of rent to him and 50% to respondent no.1 herein. Be that as it may, in case, respondent no.1 is aggrieved by respondent no.2 being arrears or tenancy being continued on low rent by petitioner herein was causing loss, it would be open for him to seek for fixation of fair rent. Said reasons cannot be justification for trial Court to implead petitioner as plaintiff no.2 instead of as defendant no.2. Impugned order would therefore call for interference. Hence, following:
ORDER
i. Writ petition is allowed.
Sd/JUDGE
AM/CLK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a co-owner impleaded in an ejectment suit as defendant can instead be impleaded as a plaintiff.
Whether the trial court erred in impleading the applicant as plaintiff no.2 despite his objection to the tenancy termination and claim of competing interest.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's order on impleadment in the given facts.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Navin Chander Anand Vs Union Bank Of India & OrsReferred¶30
Navin Chander Anand Vs Union Bank Of India & Ors reported in 2018 SCC OnLine DEL 9902 · Who else cites this
M/s. India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. & Ors. Vs Bhagabandei AgarwallaReferred¶32
M/s. India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. & Ors. Vs Bhagabandei Agarwalla (Dead) by Lrs. Smt. Savitri Agarwalla & Ors reported in (2004) 4 SCC 178
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SHRI PARASHURAM S/. HANUMANTSA DHONGADI
SHRI RAJU S/O. MURARSAMETRANI
SHRI MANOJKUMAR, S/O. MITHALAL JAIN
RAVI V.HOSMANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
