Disposed

Sri Krishnamurthy v. Smt. L Pushpalatha

Karnataka HC24 Jun 2024WP/13298/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Purchaser sought impleadment as defendant in a vendor's specific performance suit; two applications were dismissed by the trial court. The High Court set aside the first rejection order, permitted impleadment subject to payment of Rs. 50,000 costs, and declined to interfere with the order on the second application.

What did the court decide?

First rejection order set aside; petitioner permitted to be impleaded as defendant in O.S. No.2328/2014 on payment of Rs. 50,000 costs within four weeks; no interference with I.A. No.6 order.

Sri Krishnamurthy Vs Smt. L Pushpalatha — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:23003 WP No. 13298 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 13298 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI KRISHNAMURTHY S/O SRI BORAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS NO. 14, FIRST FLOOR 3RD MAIN, RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK BENGALURU-560050

¶8

SMT GEETHA B W/O KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS NO. 14, FIRST FLOOR 3RD MAIN, RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK BENGALURU-560050

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. V B SHIVA KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT. L PUSHPALATHA W/O SRI N MAHESH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 2/3, 2ND FLOOR, OBASLAPPA CROSS CHIKKAMAVALLI BENGALURU-560004

¶14

SMT L NALINI D/O SRI B LINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS NO 134, 5TH MAIN ROAD HANUMANTHANAGAR BENGALURU-560050 ALSO AT SMT L NALINI

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:23003 WP No. 13298 of 2020

¶16

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS D/O SRI B LINGAPPA MUNICIPAL NO. 16/1, 3RD MAIN ROAD RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK BBMP WARD NO.53 BENGALURU-560050

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.H S UMESHA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD 1.4.2024)

¶19

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE FOLLOWING TWO ORDERS i) ORDER DTD 06.07.2017 ON IA NO.5 REJECTING THE APPLICATION UNDER ORDER I RULE 10 (2) OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PASSED BY THE XXXV ADDL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, AT BENGALURU CCH-36 IN OS NO.2328/2014 VIDE ANNX-A ii) ORDER DTD 19.01.2019 ON IA NO.6 PASSED BY THE 35TH ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, CCH-36 VIDE ANNX-B AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This matter came up on 04.06.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner was present and there was no representation for the respondent. Today also there is no representation on behalf of the Respondents.

¶23

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶24

Suit is of the year 2014 and the writ petition is of the year

¶25

This Court is not inclined to adjourn the matter and is proceeded to hear the matter on merits. Respondent No.1

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:23003 WP No. 13298 of 2020

¶27

herein has filed a suit for specific performance of an Agreement of Sale dated 20.04.2013. Then the petitioner herein has filed I.A. to implead himself in the suit stating that even before the

¶28

suit is filed, the Sale Deed is executed in his favour on 01.02.2014 and as such, he is proper and necessary party to the suit. Then, I.A. came to be dismissed by the Court Below on 15.09.2017 observing that the Sale Deed dated 01.02.2014 is not placed before the Court. Then the petitioner had filed another application i.e., I.A. No.6 to implead himself as a defendant in the suit and also filed the Sale Deed dated 01.02.2014. The Court below had dismissed the said I.A.No.6 holding that as once the application is rejected, again for the same relief, the applicant cannot maintain the present application and I.A.No.6 is not maintainable and dismissed the same.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Court below ought to have looked into the substantial interest and justice to be done, but instead of that, more on technical grounds had dismissed the petition. It is submitted that unless the petitioner who has purchased the property much prior to the suit is impleaded as defendant No.1 in the

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:23003 WP No. 13298 of 2020

¶31

suit who is his vendor is not showing any interest to pursue the matter, it would cause irreparable loss and hardship to the party. He submits that the Court below ought not to have dismissed the I.A. in a hyper technical manner. The present writ petition is filed questioning both I.A. Nos.5 and 6.

¶32

Notice to respondent has held sufficient by order dated 01.04.2024. No Vakalath is filed on behalf of respondent.

¶33

This Court having heard learned counsel for the petitioner had perused the material on record.

¶34

This Court has perused the order dated 15.09.2017 wherein the Court below had observed that the Sale Deed is not filed and as such the application is dismissed. Then, this Court has perused the order dated 19.01.2020 whereby the 2^nd application - I.A. No.6 came to be filed by the petitioner was dismissed. In I.A. No.5 and I.A. No.6, the Court below was right in passing such an order as in I.A. No.5, he has not filed the Sale Deed. Unless and until, he has purchased the property much prior before filing the suit, the same cannot be adjudicated as such the Court below had dismissed the application. Without questioning the same, now he has filed

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:23003 WP No. 13298 of 2020

¶36

second application and the Court below was absolutely right in dismissing the application as without questioning the first order he cannot maintain the 2^nd application. While going through the order, this Court has observed the conduct of the petitioner and how diligent he was in pursuing the matters. When he came to know about the suit, he has filed the application to implead himself very negligently without even filing copy of the Sale Deed and the same was dismissed on 15.09.2017. Then he kept quiet for another two years for filing 2^nd I.A. i.e. I.A.No.6 and the order came to be passed on 19.01.2019. Then he applied for copy application on 03.10.2019 and the copy was received on 05.10.2019. Then the writ petition came to be filed on 07.10.2020 another a year for filing the writ petition. The conduct of the petitioner shows that he was not diligent in pursuing the litigation. In spite of the fact that the Court has noticed all these aspects. But unless and until he is implemented in the suit who is purchaser much prior to filing the suit, there cannot be any effective adjudication and it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings.

¶37

Considering all these aspects, this Court is inclined to

¶38

allow this writ petition and permit the petitioner to be

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:23003 WP No. 13298 of 2020

¶40

impeladed as a defendant in the suit on the condition that he shall pay an amount of ``` 50,000/- within four weeks from the

¶41

date of receipt of this order to the plaintiff in the suit.

¶42

Accordingly the following

¶43

ORDER

¶44

i. Order dated 06.07.2017 rejecting the application I.A.No.5 filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the XXXI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru in O.S. No.2328/2014 is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to come on record on the condition that he shall pay an amount of ``` 50,000/- as costs to the respondents within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶45

ii. As far I.A. No.6 is concerned, this Court is not interfering with the said order.

¶46

iii. Accordingly writ petition is disposed of .

¶47

iv. All pending IA’s if any shall stand closed.

¶48

SD/JUDGE

¶49

BS, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Sri Krishnamurthy v. Smt. L Pushpalatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Krishnamurthy v. Smt. L Pushpalatha

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

Mrs. Shruthi Lakshmi M. K. Vs Dr. Ganesh. T. Bhat

Sri M N Harish Kumar Vs Smt. Sandya Rani

Sri Sanjeev Bhandary Vs Sri Nayan

T Vishwanatha Vs G B T Geetha

Sri. C. Vikram Vs Smt. B.K. Sowmya

Aijaz Ahmed Siddiqu Vs Modi Nawab @ Modi Ahmed