Sri Anjani R @ Anjanappa v. Sri Joseph

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2025WP/25814/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; M.G.S. Kamal J; 10.03.2025; WP No. 25814 of 2018 (GM-CPC); Article 227 Constitution of India; impleadment of parties; Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC; necessary party; proper party; rejection for non-production of original sale deed; photocopy of deed of sale dated 15.06.2011; prima facie material; O.S.No.2270/2011; declaration and injunction suit; GPA holder; remand for reconsideration; Anjani R @ Anjanappa v. Joseph and others.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 26.04.2018 at Annexure-F set aside; matter remitted back to the trial Court for reconsideration of I.A.No.2; petitioner at liberty to furnish the certified copy of the deed of sale. ¶¶36

Sri Anjani R @ Anjanappa Vs Sri Joseph — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court erred in rejecting I.A.No.2 (filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC to implead respondents 2 and 3 as defendants 7 and 8) solely on the ground that the petitioner did not produce the original or certified copy of the deed of sale dated 15.06.2011. +1 more

¶¶29

Court's answer

The original of the deed of sale dated 15.06.2011 could not be expected to be with the plaintiff, and a certified copy could have been called for or summoned at any stage of the proceedings; therefore, when prima facie material (the photocopy of the deed of sale) had been brought to its notice, the trial Court could not reject the impleadment application for the mere reason of non-production of the original or certified copy.

¶¶35

Ratio / Principle

On an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, the Court is required to consider whether the party sought to be impleaded is a 'necessary party' or 'proper party' for the purpose of adjudication of the lis; the trial Court did not consider even this aspect, which further vitiates its order.

¶¶35

Key takeaways

The trial Court clearly erred in rejecting I.A.No.2; the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 26.04.2018 (Annexure-F) is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the trial Court for reconsideration of I.A.No.2, the petitioner being at liberty to furnish the certified copy of the deed of sale.ratio¶¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-CPC) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the plaintiff in O.S.No.2270/2011 (suit for declaration and injunction) against the order dated 26.04.2018 (Annexure-F) of the XIV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, rejecting I.A.No.2 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC seeking impleadment of respondents 2 and 3 as defendants 7 and 8, on the premise that during the pendency of the suit defendant No.5 executed a deed of sale dated 15.06.2011 in favour of Sri R.Munithayappa (proposed defendant No.8) through his GPA holder Sri G.V.Narayan (proposed defendant No.7). The trial Court rejected the application solely because the plaintiff did not produce the original or certified copy of the deed of sale and declined to accept the photocopy. HELD: (i) the original of the sale deed cannot be expected to be with the plaintiff, and a certified copy could have been called for or summoned at any stage; with prima facie material on record, the application could not be rejected merely for non-production of the original; (ii) on an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, the Court must consider whether the party sought to be impleaded is a necessary or proper party for adjudication of the lis, an aspect the trial Court failed to consider. Petition allowed; impugned order set aside; matter remitted to the trial Court for reconsideration of I.A.No.2, with liberty to the petitioner to furnish the certified copy of the deed of sale.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:10130 WP No. 25814 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 25814 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI ANJANI R @ ANJANAPPA S/O KODIHALLI RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/A @ 127, "SRINILAYA" 2^ND CROSS, ERAPPA REDDY LAYOUT BANASAWADI MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560 033

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI SRIDHAR.B.R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI M.SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI JOSEPH

¶12

Digitally signed by ROOPA R U Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

S/O MR XAVIER AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/A NO.22, 16^TH CROSS JAYABHARATHNAGAR

¶14

BANGALORE-560 033

¶15

G V NARAYAN S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/A NO.31, CHELEKERE VILLAGE KALYANANAGAR POST BANGALORE-560 043

¶16

SRI R MUNITHAYAPPA S/O LATE KODIHALLI RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS

¶17

R/A NO.5/39, M V REDDY LAYOUT LINGARAJAPURAM EXTENSION

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10130 WP No. 25814 of 2018

¶19

BANGALORE-560 084

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI V VIJAYA SHEKARA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED ON I.A.2 IN O.S.2270/2011 DATED 26.04.2018 AT ANNEXURE-F ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BANGALORE CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW THE I.A.2 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) OF CPC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Petitioner who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.2270/2011 which is filed by him for the relief of declaration and injunction is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 26.04.2018 passed by the trial Court rejecting his application/I.A.No.2 filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC seeking to implead the respondents 2 and 3 herein as defendants 7 and 8.

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10130 WP No. 25814 of 2018

¶28

That said application is filed on the premise that during the pendency of the suit defendant No.5 had executed deed of sale dated 15.06.2011 in favour of Sri.R.Munithayappa, the proposed defendant No.8 through his General power of Attorney holder Sri.G.V.Narayan, the proposed defendant No.7 and that their presence before the Court was necessary for effective adjudication of dispute between the parties.

¶29

The trial Court rejected the said application solely on the ground that the plaintiff did not produce the original of the deed of sale to ascertain whether the subject matter of the suit schedule property was the subject matter of the deed of sale dated 15.06.2011 as contended by the plaintiff. The trial Court however declined to accept the photocopy of the deed of sale that was produced by the plaintiff.

¶30

Learned counsel for petitioner submit that the trial Court ought to have allowed the application and erred in rejecting the same merely because the petitioner did not produce the original or certified copy of the said document.

¶31

Heard and perused the records.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:10130 WP No. 25814 of 2018

¶34

The only reason on which the trial Court has rejected the application is non production of original or certified copy of the deed of sale dated 15.06.2011 which is stated to have been

¶35

executed by GPA holder of defendant No.5 in favour of the proposed defendant No.8. Necessary to note original of the said sale deed cannot be expected to be with the plaintiff in the first place. Secondly certified copy of the said document could have been called for/summoned at any stage of the proceedings. Despite the petitioner producing the photocopy of the deed of sale, trial Court has rejected the application. When prima facie material having been brought to its notice, the trial Court could not have rejected the application for the mere reason of non-production of the original. That apart, when an application under Order 1 Rule 10 is filed eventually Court is required to see if the party sought to be impleaded is necessary party' or proper party' for the purpose of adjudication of the lis. Even this aspect is not considered. Thus clearly the trial Court has erred in rejecting the said application.

¶36

Accordingly, petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 26.04.2018 at Annexure-F is set aside. Matter is remitted back

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:10130 WP No. 25814 of 2018

¶38

¶39

to the trial Court for reconsideration of said

¶40

application/I.A.No.2. Petitioner is at liberty to furnish the certified copy of the deed of sale.

¶41

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶42