Plaintiffs challenged a trial court order impleading respondent no.13 as defendant on his claim of purchase of part of suit schedule property from a Society. The High Court held that whether he has title is a matter for trial and that mere impleading confers no right, and dismissed the writ petition.
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 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT PETITION NO.13942 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: High Court of Karnataka
(BY SRI S.NOORMOHAMMED, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…PETITIONERS
RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDENTS OF MARUTHI NILAYA # 151, 1ST MAIN, GEDDALAHALLI
SANJAYANAGARA POST BENGALURU-560 094.
#152/2, 3 CROSS, GEDDALAHALLI SANJAYANAGAR POST BANGALORE-560 094.
BENGALURU-560 094.
BENGALURU-560 094.
W/O. VENKAT N. GUDIWADA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS # 1076/A, 12TH 'A' CROSS VYALIKAVAL, MALLESWARAM BENGALURU-560 003.
8TH CROSS, MAGADI ROAD BANGALORE-560 023.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.12.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XLI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BANGALORE, IN O.S.NO.6715/2015 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1/2021 AS PER ANNEXURE-F ACCORDING TO LAW, ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
no.13 to implead himself in the proceedings. The case of the applicant in the said I.A. is that he has purchased a portion of the suit schedule property for a valuable consideration from a Society. Along with the application, the impleading applicant has produced a copy of the sale deed. Consequently, the trial court has allowed the said I.A. and has ordered that he be impleaded as a party to
the proceedings. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
just and necessary party to the proceedings and has allowed the impleading application. Mere allowing of the impleading application does not confer any right in favour
of respondent no.13 in respect of the suit schedule property and it is a question of trial to be decided by the
trial court. For that reason, I do not see any error in the order passed by the trial court.
it.
hkh.
Sd/JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in impleading a purchaser of a portion of the suit property as defendant no.13 under Order I Rule 10 CPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Munivenkatamma W/o M. Anjanappa
Maruthi S/o M. Ramanjiniah
Ramanjanaiah S/o Munianajanappa @ Thammiappa
Ms. Shashikala D/o Ramanjanaiah
Anjanamma D/o Munianajanappa @ Thammiappa
Munithyamma @ Thayamma No. Munianajanappa @ Thammiappa
M.I. Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
