Disposed

T R Kishore Kumar v. P Annaiah

Karnataka HC11 Mar 2024WP/2990/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of writ petitions challenging rejection of applications for impleadment and amendment in a specific performance suit. Counsel conceded that the related suit for cancellation was transferred to the same court with liberty to seek clubbing, making further orders on the applications unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed of with liberty to seek clubbing of suits.

T R Kishore Kumar Vs P Annaiah — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:9783 WP No. 2990 of 2021 C/W WP No. 3049 of 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 2990 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

¶7

C/W

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 3049 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

¶9

IN W.P.NO.2990/2021

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

T.R.KISHORE KUMAR S/O T.RAMACHANDRA SETTY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS NO.16, III CROSS KATHRIGUPPE MAIN RAOD BANASHANKARI III STAGE BENGALURU-560 085

¶12

Digitally signed by BS RAVIKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

T.N.SANTOSH KUMAR S/O T.K.NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS NO.56/1, PUTTANNA ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560 004

¶14

BOTH REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER MR. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. SIDDHARTH B MUCHANDI, ADVOCATE)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:9783 WP No. 2990 of 2021 C/W WP No. 3049 of 2021

¶19

AND:

¶20

P.ANNAIAH S/O MALLAIAH @ PUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS NO.3482, 6^TH CROSS I MAIN ROAD GAYATHRI NAGAR BENGALURU-560 021

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SRI.UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI.THOMAS VELLAPALLY, ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.02.2021 PASSED ON IA.NO.3 IN O.S.NO.74/2010 PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPURA AND ALLOW THE INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3 DATED 24.05.2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE TO IMPLEAD THE PROPOSED DEFENDANT (COMPANY MENTIONED THEREIN) AS DEFENDANT NO.2.

¶24

IN W.P.NO.3049/2021

¶25

BETWEEN:

¶26

T.R.KISHORE KUMAR S/O T.RAMACHANDRA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, NO.16, III CROSS, KATHRIGUPPE MAIN ROAD, BANASHANKARI III STAGE, BENGALURU-560 085

¶27

T.N.SANTOSH KUMAR S/O T.K.NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶28

- 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9783 WP No. 2990 of 2021 C/W WP No. 3049 of 2021

¶29

NO.56/1, PUTTANNA ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560004 BOTH REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER, MR KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

¶30

…PETITIONERS

¶31

(BY SRI. SIDDHARTH B. MUCHANDI, ADVOCATE)

¶32

AND:

¶33

P.ANNAIAH S/O MALLAIAH @ PUTTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, NO.3482, 6^TH .CROSS, I MAIN ROAD, GAYATHRI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 021

¶34

…RESPONDENT

¶35

(BY SRI.UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI.THOMAS VELLAPALLY, ADVOCATE)

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 03.02.2021 PASSED ON I.A.NO.5 IN O.S.NO.74/2010 PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPURA VIDE ANNX-A AND ALLOW THE INTERIM APPLICATION NO.5 DTD. 24.05.2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE TO CARRYOUT AMENDMENT OF THE PLAINT AS PROPOSED IN THE APPLICATION.

¶37

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶38

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:9783 WP No. 2990 of 2021 C/W WP No. 3049 of 2021

¶39

ORDER

¶40

W.P.No.2990/2021 is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.74/2010 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura challenging the order dated 03.02.2021, by which the application (I.A.No.III) filed by them under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead the proposed defendant as defendant No.2 was rejected.

¶41

W.P.No.3049/2021 is filed by the very same plaintiffs in O.S.No.74/2010 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura challenging the correctness of an order dated 3.2.2021 by which an application filed by them (I.A.No.V) under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for amendment was rejected.

¶42

The suit in O.S.No.74/2010 was filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 15.03.2004. The defendant contested the suit and claimed that he had entered into an earlier agreement of sale dated 2.4.1999 in favour of M/s.JKM Research Farm Ltd. who filed

¶43

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:9783 WP No. 2990 of 2021 C/W WP No. 3049 of 2021

¶44

O.S.No.62/2004 for specific performance of the said agreement. A compromise was entered into between the defendant and JKM Research Farm Ltd., in W.P. No.34200/2009, which arose out of an interlocutory order in O.S.No.62/2004. Consequent thereto, the defendant executed a sale deed dated 24.04.2010 in favour of M/s.JKM Research Farm Ltd.

¶45

Following these contentions in the written statement, the plaintiffs filed O.S.No.73/2011 for cancellation of the sale deed dated 24.04.2010. Later, they filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC in O.S.No.74/2010 to amend the plaint and introduce further contentions namely, the falsity of the sale agreement dated 15.03.2004 and the unconscionable sale deed dated 24.04.2010 etc. They also filed an application to implead M/s. JKM Research Farm Ltd., in the present suit. Both these applications were rejected by the impugned order which are challenged in these writ petitions.

¶46

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:9783 WP No. 2990 of 2021 C/W WP No. 3049 of 2021

¶47

When the petitions were listed for orders, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly conceded that the suit for declaration filed in O.S.No.73/2011 is ordered to be transferred to the court where O.S.No.74/2010 was pending consideration and liberty was reserved to the petitioners to seek clubbing of both the suits. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no need now to consider the two applications as liberty is reserved to the plaintiffs/petitioners to club the suits.

¶48

In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and that since the suit in O.S.No.73/2011 filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs for cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of the proposed defendant is ordered to be transferred to the Court where the suit for specific performance in O.S.No.74/2010 is pending consideration and also since liberty is reserved to the petitioners to seek clubbing of both suits, it is not necessary to pass any orders in these writ petitions. Hence, these writ petitions are disposed off,

¶49

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:9783 WP No. 2990 of 2021 C/W WP No. 3049 of 2021

¶50

reserving liberty to the petitioners to pursue the liberty granted to them for getting both the suits clubbed.

¶51

In view of disposal of the petitions, all pending applications stand disposed off.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

T R Kishore Kumar v. P Annaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T R Kishore Kumar v. P Annaiah

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

Smt. Komala Vs Sri G S Mahendra

Sri. Dwarkanath G Vs M/S Multi Pearl Apartment Owners Association

K. a. Umesh Vs the Secretary

P Kailasam Vs Savirasa Tele Films

Rakesh Vs Sureshrao

Sri Rajanna Vs Sri Poojappa