IN THE HIGH COURT OF KA'RNATAK;s{f T_ * '
CIRCUIT BENCH AT mfikilzwiaj) . % « A
DATED THIS Tag 231*' DAY 01: $'E1?f"i'§,MBER.2$0'8 %
BEFORE; k %
THE HON'BLE MR. JLISi1f:c.E Au%JzxN15%BYRAREi)DY
WRIT PEm'IeN r«2{,i%1§;~223;.éQ07 -CFC)
BETWEEN:
Smt.ParWa.'mw\$=a%_ V" '* ' .,._ ,_
Wfo Bamppa F391,.
Aged 60 §€eat's, ~ "
Occ: Agriciziturc, '
Rio Hasur, Taiuk -.1.";1VVzV:'r1.'a1j§:AIr';ai':<i:..1"'-;'.L'
V Distrif;§i3aga1ket;-» A .. PETFKONER
Ad$}¥.&,§
A1\§D€
E» Yasiiayfiint Hanamantappa Bugati
» AA Aged 75 years,
V. " Agriculture,
V' Rio Hosur, Taiuk Eamakhandi,
A x --7I)is1:r§<:t Bagaikot
9' 5 V2. Mahadev Shivappa, Ghote,
Aged 47 years,
Occz Agricizlture,
IN}
Rio Hesur, Taluk Jamakhandi,
District Bagalket.
3. Sangappa Rangappa. Bugati
Aged 28 years,
Occ: Agricuiture, _
Rio Garden land area, Hosur},
Taiuk Jaznakhandi, __
District Bagaikat. V ._ _ VA .. RESPONDENTS
(by Shri S.C.Bhuti, Adv.,V_£¢’r.P.i$f_3\E}anja R<§dd§§i, Adv., far R-I
R~–2 and R~3jam segved) * A
This;Wi'i_t. Pei;i1ti§0i1'~.is–__fi'}£:d'¥.;ziderV.Articles 226 and 227 of
tha C0nstim1V:i€;m%«§f India», "fs1'ayi:1g fro quash the erder datd
21.-é¥.2!Z}lT!7{’02IV N:’:€=:.’§II”‘inV’O.S.N’0′;’1452007 passed by the Civii
Judge:'{}r.Dn) Sazzaljatti’ v.i&e–.Anfiem1re~E.
Tfii:=:L4_’petitiE3r; for Preiinmzary Hearing (B-
Gmtgp) this dziy, the’–C<5u1't"made the foliowingz
" H . . . . . . .. (D R B E R
;§é;£jf:~on Gaming on for Prefiminary Hearigtxg
(BA4'«(3'r0.¥1'i3}»,i§'SAconsidered-for finai disposal.
The petitioner is the third defendant in a pending suit
T “filed by the firs’: respondent. It is the petiti<:»ncr's case that in
the main reliaf claimeci, them is 110 reiief sought against the
E
petitiezzer in the suit. The only averment the_.t''isv–_ti:eu '*
piaini is to state that the game of the Vpetitic-net «ieentered V§iz..the_:
Record of Rights in respect efeuit of: = V L'
account of this eircamstasjce thatV.the"petit§:oner h'.-aeebeeiz named
as a defendant.
3. The :fil’e}i’a”ix’rit{en statement in
the seit and thatiefifiied ext tintier Ordey VII Ruie 11
seeking3;’ejectic¥n’–“:}f.the pfieiet as? against the petitiener. The
Trial C0u£t;’.hQ’A%€#cr;”V that there is no reiief sought
_ agaiuet the pet£tien’erVee§1.’th0ugh it is also admitted that there is
rie;ea:zse.ef~ aetien__against the defendant having been named as
a tbftiztai partjgf? there is no prejudice or injustice caused to the
‘;c_tefeec”ia§2t”«;a1td hence, has rejected the epplieatien seeking
” ef the p}aint.
4. The Counsel fer the petitioner wcezid place reiianee on
A a judgmezzt of the Supreme Court in the ease of IIC. Linzfted
vs, flebts’ Reeavegv fipgveliate ifriézezeé {1,998)[,2) SCC ?{2; to
Z;
d pe’t$;ii–3eet.’
C(Z1I}’£6fid that the pieint admittediy indicating that’ ifhetfe-i ~
cause of action against the petitioner, the. éplaintiidugiht it i
been rejected £2′; terms of Order
Civil Procedure, 1908. In the alte133atixie,’–the* :0 i
have directed deletion the petitidnetiinis..net eineeensary and
proper party. Further it Triai Ccezrt ti)
have rendered dismissing
the suit ageinetiiQtfgeiiidefendent/ii:l§nideiti’:§Otder Xi: Rule 6 of the
Code “.4908, since it is an admitted
cireumstae{;e_’ thvati” there” no cause ef action against the
. i5′.:iiiGiveei”ti1ete:2or 0f the Order VII Rule 11(a), which
previieteniiethiet the plaint shall be rejected when no cause of
A is disclosed. The provision does net specify that the
i gzilfeiet is capable of rejeetien against each defendant, if no cause
of action is disciesed as observed by the Trial Ceurt. In this
eirceznstanee, the respondent-plaintiff having made the
£
petitioner a party by way of abtzodant ‘w
petitionefis name figures to the reeofd of~r3’gi1t$;t,.’it-isetl’ih’e..;”i:;l5;’
of the petitioner that he woulchseek wlthtlmwail’}ff{;:;1«-‘theeeit,
even though he has made eleer Written
statement. If the petifieoerheecepteie. to be deleted
as a party not eoit, it would be
open fer eoproetiate application for
deletion,lv’aI1d’,llthel ehEeli”‘aec0rdingly consider the
same. Trial Court was justified in
rejecting thelagxpkiieeti-oo”»u1i£ier Order VII Rule It is? therefore,
V’ “riot ztebessary to be eéifisidered on its meyits. It is yet ope}: for
the tot-seek deletion, without there beiog any cause of
actioo <:3rV__vw:'th'o1ilt there being any relief sought for against the
l " 4 " — .. h3e,'dtione1';—- 'l
The petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner
Ito approach the Trial Court seeking deletion. The Trial Court
shall consider the same oorugsitandiog the impugned order
passed on the eariier application by the appiicant seéiging
;*a}ection of the piaént.
i Judge ; ,; 4
VW