Govindappa Vs Sri.Abdul Munaff

SRI. SHAFIQUR RAHMAN T.F, S/O LATE FAZLUR RAHAMAN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.118/6, HENNUR MAIN ROAD, KACHAKARANAHALLI, ST. THOMAS TOWN POST, BANGALORE 560084

¶21

THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE- 560020

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.04.2025 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT (CCH-21) WAS PLEASED TO DISMISS IA NO. 4 IN OS NO. 25725/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNX-F BY WAY OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND PLEASE TO ALLOW IA NO. 4 IN OS NO. 25725/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶27

This petition is filed by the proposed defendant

¶28

No.2/petitioner/impleading applicant, who has filed an

¶29

application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:42927 WP No. 32154 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

151 of CPC to implead himself to the suit proceedings in O.S.No.25725/2018.

¶34

OS.No.25725/2018 is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs. Petitioner/applicant/proposed defendant No.2 has filed the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead himself on the ground that his father, the Late.A.Srinivas and his uncle Nagaraj, are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property. After due enquiry, petitioner came to know that one Adiyappa and Nagaraju had forged the signature of his father and got executed the General Power of Attorney in favour of one Iqbal who sold the suit schedule property in favour of the plantiff. The same is a concocted and fabricated document, and the petitioner herein has already filed the

¶35

suit for partition in the Court at Hosakote, which includes the suit schedule property. Therefore, he contends that he would be a proper and necessary party in the suit

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:42927 WP No. 32154 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

proceedings as his rights would be effected by the orders passed by the trial Court.

¶40

It is an admitted fact that the suit is filed for permanent injunction by the plaintiff against the defendant. The question of validity and correctness or otherwise of the claim so made by the petitioner with regard to the GPA executed in favour of one Iqbal who has sold the property to the plaintiff, and being concocted and fabricated cannot be drawn into the suit for permanent injunction as that is not an issue involved in the suit and no such plea is made by either plaintiff or defendant.

¶41

The point for consideration before this Court is:

¶42

Whether the application under filed Order 10(2) Rule 1 and 2 filed by the petitioner/applicant is required to be allowed or whether he is required to be made a party.

¶43

2. Whether the petitioner/applicant would be a proper and necessary party to be included in a suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42927 WP No. 32154 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

The trial Court has considered the submissions

¶47

and arguments of the learned counsels and has narrated the averments so made by the petitioner and rejected the application for the reasons stated in paragraph Nos.7 and 8 of its order.

¶48

The trial Court has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in case of Mumbai International Airport Private Limited., Vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Pvt., Ltd., and others , reported in 2010 (7) SCC 417 which is held as under:

¶49

"14. The said provision makes it clear that a court may, at any stage of the person who ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant, but not added; or (b) any person whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the suit. In short, the court is given the discretion to add as a party, any person who is found to be a necessary party or proper party.

¶50

6 -

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:42927 WP No. 32154 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

15. A “necessary party” is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. If a “necessary party” is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A “proper party” is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the court has no jurisdiction to implead him, against the wishes of the plaintiff. The fact that a person is likely to secure a right/interest in a suit property, after the suit is decided against the plaintiff, will not make such person a necessary party or a proper party to the suit for specific performance."

¶54

When an application is filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC, what is required to be considered by the Court is who is a proper party and who is a necessary party. In the said judgment, the "necessary party" is described as a person who ought to have been joined as a

¶55

7 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:42927 WP No. 32154 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. If a "necessary party" is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to dismissed.

¶59

A "proper party" is a party who, though not a

¶60

necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made .

¶61

Therefore, it is trite law that if the person is not found to be the proper or necessary party, and in suit proceedings, the decree could be passed without the impleading applicant/petitioner, then the petitioner need not be a party in the said suit, though he has several contentions and makes several reliefs or grounds urged in the said application to be made a party.

¶62

Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner herein has already filed a suit for

¶63

8 -

¶64

NC: 2025:KHC:42927 WP No. 32154 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

partition, and he is at liberty to seek necessary reliefs in the said suit which is a comprehensive suit, whereas the present suit in question is only for permanent injunction between the plaintiff and the defendant which anywhere would not affect the title rights of the parties.

¶67

In view of the same, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the orders passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, I pass the following order.

¶68

ORDER

¶69

The petition is dismissed.

¶70

SD/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶71

RCK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Govindappa v. Sri.Abdul Munaff

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govindappa v. Sri.Abdul Munaff

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sonnamma Vs Sri. Ramakrishnareddy

Smt. Nagarathnamma Vs Sri Yathish

Smt S H Shanthamma Vs Sri Gurulingaiah

Sri H G Basavarajappa, Vs Sri Ramachandrappa

Corporate Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ezetap Mobiles Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Sri Manjunath a Vs Smt Jayalakshmamma