1 O V 'R}5xJASHEKAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Opcrm THIS THE 23*" Om OF March, 2.909
BEFORE *
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S;_?£§1'Ii;V. i V
WRIT P§TmON NO.14-890 OF 2006
BETWEEN O
1 sum JAGATH KOMAR O %
AGED ABOUT 48 *rRsk O A O O
5/0 LATE K N PATrAa;a::RpM%ONAIO«O O
R/O NO 4, NE'W'NQ'T9, M;a:R1AMMA KO: O
STREET, COMMECIAL'.STREET_'CROSS
BANGALORE-1,. '. -
2 sum P RAMESH O
AGEO Asom 42 was A &
s;O LATE"~K' N~:>A¢TABH1RnM NAIDU
R/0'.NO_4,,NEW.NO'9_, MARIAMMA KOIL
L STREET, O.cOOr4OM«5c:ALsmsET caoss
permomens
(a~;,«ssa.M.prabnam~ SIPRAKASH T
O = O O ' O 4.5/QXLATE BHARATH
gem ABOUT 54 YRS
R/O NO 1697, VII MAIN
VII (moss, RPC LAYOUT, v1JAYANG.s;E I
BANGALORE 40
2 Smt A M GUNAVATHI
D/O VENKATESHALU
R/O NO 342, 10 MAIN
SAMPIGE LAYOUT
BANGALORE 79
3 THE STANDARDI"CHAR?;'ERi?,D EANK
(PREVIOUSLY KN-OWNAS ,AN:;tGa.rNmAYs
BANK) b€~ORTGAGE:'COLL,ECTIOfi5S BRANCH
oEE1c:E,-ETJTUATE AT F!.AH_EJAjTOWERS
MEZZANEME r-'L005: Nogze, M.G.RoAt)
EA:4GAL0RE, , RESPONDENTS
(By G :2, MQHAN Advocate
EoR :22, -R1»–$d___-“~’~’Sri B.c.AvINAsH
F~..9V0CATE§f MR3)
; A THIS wgfi. ISFITLED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
C>F=CQNsTITu”i”:c.W:~s OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
, ‘ORDER 15.9.2006 PASSED BY THE XXVIII
CITY CIVIL JUDGE, MAYO HALL,
(CCH NO.29) AS PER ANNEXURE A BY
ALLOWINEBI THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FILED
BY TH-E”‘F’ElIlIONERS IN THE COURT BELOW UNDER
A ORUVER 1 RULE 10(2) OF THE CPC FOR IMPLEADMENT –
EV OETHE SAID BANK, AS PER ANNEXURE 3.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MAOE THE FOLLOWING?-
…3….
gem t }
Order dated 15*” September, 2oo5,«%%peseeduoy
the XXVIII Additional City Civil Judge’;M§.~eo”i§iéi’I}”
Bangaiore City, rejecting the it
Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the cddeier mainPrm:eddreiin%
0.S.No.1688S/2004 is cneiieriged ininime petition. A
2. Petitioner Court
below. He fiied Vio_«–“impiead the 3*”
respond..eri:i*’..:e~¥é.§*?::fiiiiE.i_’ii; defendant in the
suitvVei_iei;;’i:;fg’-it rtiendency of the suit the
defendaiitei’tc;~;.iii§d§¢i.y_’:i§iiti’: -each other and executed a
Generaiii.’Eoioei-:_ot’._/ettoreey in favour of the proposed
reepect of the suit schedule property.
‘ .:.”i’he*vpetiVt;i.t§’ner further contended that the defendants
“iiri””crder?:_td cause wrongfui loss to him and also to
deprive his right, titie and interest over the suit
veeheduie property created such an interest in favour
of the proposed defendant. This applicatioi1l_t*n(as
objected to by the defendants and as.4’:;alSl6r’5¥; 4_
proposed defendant. The
the application holding that
favour of the proposed”‘v:defendant_ be
subject to the result-of thetthe: proposed
defendant was a property
party for of the dispute
raised 1itth’;*;=.a’5’¥7?_;’:’itV;’ ‘ L ‘
for the petitioner contends
that the”‘~wpr’op,osed_”defendant is put in possession of
A propertyV1’Vby””virtue of an order passed under the
..proefisiorts”-of~ the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
AFina1j:cialAl.i’.=AVssets and Enforcement of Security Interest
.. {>__lct..,,’»n;2G{)2, and therefore unless the proposed
«1″i..vV’defendant is arrayed as a party to the suit, the
piaintii’-f~petitioner will not be entitled for the relief
%_