1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2"" DAY OF SEPTEMBER,
BEFORE
WRIT PETITEON ND,1837""/201D "
BETWEEN:
U. NAGESH NAYA:<~.._
S/D LATE ANANTHA NAY'AK,:;_=
THE HON'BLE MR. 3USTICE A.N-; 'V'E'E\lL}'G'.,(")P(A"1.:AA:GDWDA7, A
AGED 55 YEARS, R/AT. D.ND'.'S'49__--.$_SD79;f1',
MURUGHA MUTT COMPOU N'D,=_
DONGARAKERI, M:ANc_3AEDRE',~..'
D.K. DIs;'rRI;'ri:*r_, , =
SRI SRASRAR A '
PJF€~uSH'DTHAn1A"""'-- "
;§\GE_D_AVEsCr',JT[ 55 YEARS, . '
R,/AT D.reD.5g9;8a=,7,'=A.__' " __
MURUGHA MUETT-C_O~MPO"UND,
DoN'eARAKER1,'MAA:;;ALoRE,
_ « D. K.DIST_RI'CT".
' SR1 N'A,RAYAN'A"B
S/O. LATE, BABU,
_AG.ED.A30gT 51 YEARS,
, D'.N"D.,..5-9'+w847,
E' ' MURUTHA MUTi' COMPOUND,
DDNGARAKERI, MANGALORE,
.D.K_.DISTRICT.
A' '*-.,_SRI v. VASANTHA RAD
S/O LATE v. MADHAVA RAD,
AGED 68 YEARS,
D.NO.5-9-876,
MURUTHA MUTT COMPOUND,
"(BY SRI K.SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADV.,
DONGARAKERI, MANGALORE,
D.K.DISTRICT.
S SRI GOPAL MANJUNATH GAVASKER,
S/O LATE MANJUNATH P GAVASKER,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
D.NO.5~9~877,
MURUTHA MUTT COMPOUND,
DONGARAKERI, MANGALORE,
D.K.DISTRICT.
(BY SRI VIJAY KRISHNA aHAT,=Apv.)
AND: 'V V V
1 SR1 MURUGHA MUTE
CHITRADURGA, "
REP. BY ITS PONTIFF &,M,A'rAr3HI~RATH;I,__
SRI-- SRI SH.IvAMu,R-1* HY .MUR!.jGHA. SHARANARU,
BY HIS RA 'HOLDER MR....KARU'N!\'I<.AR,f
S/O LATE R.;--I5ABu MAISTRY, "
AGEB'44'$I--'-EARS, ' I
R/AT DVHANIQAKERI-.H0L;SE'," I
KGI"'C.HA'DI PEJST, "MA'NG/~\L"0'RE;
£_).K.D_IS'T5RICT?.--V 575098.. _'
2 SHREE SHREE S'l~iIVA_PRAKASH SWAMIYAR,
V.(_uFATHE'RS NAME NOT KNOWN)
AGED MA3o.R, I
S21-R. JANGAMA"'SAMATHANA MUTi',
I GURU.PU.RA, MANGALORE TALUK,
_D".K_.'D.IST_ 5574145.
LAXMLMEMORIAL EDUCATION TRUST (R)
REP'.BY"ITS PRESIDENT
JANARDHANA SHETTY,
» A AGED 55 YEARS,
' S/O.LATE.SANKAPPA SHETTY,
R/AT."LAXMI", LOWER BENDORE,
MANGALORE, D.K.
L21'. _
RESPONDENTS
.Q’.’RI2AETITIoI$iE.RS~_VV
2. Murugha Mutt the 1st respondent herein has
filed O.S.26/06 on the file of Civii Judge
Mangaiore, in which respondents 2 and__.?3.”a’re–i:__f.’tiE?E§’,
defendants. The suit is for the relief of deci’av~rajtio’n~::oftitie”‘V if
and canceliation of documents and other inrcid~entai”Vre[iei:?s;
The 2″” respondent herein has..__fiiedV”written s:tat;emVeVnt3
has contested the suit. Petitio:V:n”e.ij:3 filed t}.S.26/06
Under 0 1 R 10 of of the Court to
permit them to corine-down ‘isuppiementary
defendants in the suit wiil
have a 705/o5 filed by them
and pendi-_ngA the piaintiff «- Murugha
Mutt in I.A.3, the 2″” defendant
fiiedicouinter o’n”i?,V9vv.G3AiG6 and opposed the prayer made by
the.:petfiti.on.ers in I.A.3. The Triai Court having examined
f”‘t~he.–.maV’tter;«._h’a;’s'”Vheid that the petitioners are not necessary
parties the suit and hence, has dismissed I.A.3. The
if’T’-iffiiisaird.order has been questioned in this writ petition by the
.’ a–ppfi’cants in I.A.3.
\/,
3. Sri V.K. Bhat, iearned advocate appearing for
the petitioners wouid contend that the decisjioun~.i_ in
O.S.26/06 wm have a bearing on the suits’.fiiecite.V.’i;:v__”.th_e’
petitioners i.e., o.s. 607/05 and 795/05 .a’ndf};e;riee,’–they
ought to have been allowed;
supplementary defendants .int4._o.s.’2ia/Us fiie’dVth.e
respondent herein. Learned co.n’ten:dedVv5that, the
Trial Court without co–nsid_er’;i_ngVj§’the»–_’rna”tter in the correct
perspective and by vm–isd_ijrect–ing_ “iitseif’.:v..’5jas passed the
impugned order ir..r’atio..nai.”‘
4’.” Kira_’n””SVhetty, learned advocate
appearvingii for thQ’V”gfiV§i».re§.ppndent, invited my attention to
the staterne-nt”of_nbject’i*o’ins filed to I.A.3 on 29.6.06 and
~”t~.,,_Aco;.:ite~ng,_-1.gd…_ that.”‘*~there is a coliusion between the
pet.ition’e:_rssandjtthe 15* respondent herein, to defeat the
of_ithe_ 21″” respondent and hence, the prayer in I.A.3
‘x__has b~ee’r: rightiy rejected by the Triai Court. Learned
A ‘*:.”‘cottn’se! submitted that, no reiief having been sought
against the petitioners herein in the suit filed by the 15″
I
respondent, petitioners are not necessary parties. _I___t was
pointed out that, unless the petitioners are held.i:’to:”‘–be
necessary parties, the prayer in I.A.3 being m’i;SCQflVCTé’i\(gTd.ii””
has rightiy been rejected. Learned .c.oiinse’l it
the petitioners are at liberty to p’rose_cu’te
05. 607/05 and 705/o5 in ‘ac:CQrdanAceflwith’la’\ili.,;'”t.ea;rnedVi’
counsei made submissions iny_.si1:’ppo”rtg’ of.’the…finyd§ings and
conclusion of the Triai Ccidrt order.
5. on both
sides andi’V”l’-papers, the point for
consid:era”t’ion’:isv:ail’; 3 V i it I
“lswiiethei;iVihgsV_i’rii_ai ocredit is justified in dismissing
pertyislal of the plaint in O.S.26/G6 as at
indicate that the suit is for deciaration
tha’t…thev’plai~ntiff is the owner of schedule ‘A’ property and
Ki”-..VVV”‘forgthlewrelief of directing the defendants to hand over
possession of the plaint scheduie property and symbolic
possession of the building situated in item 1 of the
‘>4
property and on their failure, to recover possession
through the process of the Court. There are furthe.rVprayers
for declaration that the registered documentsw’are’,j’,*to’
declared as null and void and unenforceable”iv*n.:ji_a,W’~iar’;d for”
cancellation etc.
7. The case of theViJ’lFi,,’fi’tiQneArs in and’
705/05 is that they arein po&ss*es.s:i’on’*-a_nd enjo-yment of the
suit properties and -be disturbed by
the 2″” respondeint hence, the 2″”
respondent restrained by isue
of decree’ iriJA’uLl”Vn’Ct’i§on. The case of the
petitioners asl ,.o..s. 607/05 and 705/05 is
distinct andse’para–te°t_hariVthe one which has been putforth
..respo’n’dvent’ herein in 0.8.26/2006, Apparently,
by the petitioners herein in their said
suitsihcanAn’ot._g;nb hand in hand with the prayer made by the
‘a__1*°” respondwent herein in O.S.26/2006. The claim made by
A Cfthel””2″d respondent that, there -is collusion between the
petitioners and the IS” respondent to defeat its rights,
K/7
/
prima facie appears to be justified. No person can come
on record as a suppiementary defendant to suppo-rtthe
case of the piaintiff and that too when a
separate reiief has been sought by fiiing sepairate :suits,V if
8. By virtue of Order 1
has the power to add a party,.:b~u%t the .<:__ondgiftivonfprecedentV' C
is that the Court must 3;? satis~f§ed_:'th'at.'the fipre.se.ii§ce of the
party to be added order to enable
the Court to .ve'fffectuai:iy";a'ri;¢1 V¢O,}fa_piete'i;yVV'"'adjudicate upon
and settie aii themsuit. The Court has
discreti'on'f' upon the facts and
circumstances if on account of impieading
there__were~ to._'.beA'=. protraction or inconvenience or
b.effect"to"'the party on record, the prayer for
in1pi'ead'ing -ca.nr'rot be aiiowed.
-In view of the above and since no reiief has
J’b.een sought against the petitioners in O.S.26/G6 fiied by
13* respondent herein and considering the nature of
-prayer in the said suit which is only against the 2″” and 3”
ix
respondents, the petitioners are not necessary parties.
Prayer in I.A.3 has been correctiy considered ajr:=d:’f”th’ere
being no merit, has rightly been rejected_.,4″ii–yiétyhejkriacii
Court. There is neither any i_r,rat.i_onai.ityiV”‘hrj’;¢» Viiie4’_g;a|i”c.yuu
” committed by the Trial Court in the rraatter ‘or
of I.A.3 and in passing the iinpn-..gnedA’order,’
In the resuit, shail stand
dismissed.
the observations
made of consideration of
prayeir:vVma_deA’Vins >and”‘-s_ha||.’not construed as expression
of opinionon of either of the parties in
O.S.§607./O5 and”705’v/”O5, The petitioners are entitied to
i””prosect§’te the said suits in accordance with law. The
“~ji,§::lgrnentaV_nVd.’VV-decree passed in O.S.26/O6 if any, shali not
have any’ bearing on the ciaim of the petitioners in their
i;e.,io.s. 607/05 and 705/05.
ix
IO
Since the suits have been filed in 2005 and___ 2006,
the Triai Court is directed to dispose of the th.;*eef–s£;–its,
keeping in view the provisions made under the
(Case F-“Eow Management in Su.bo.rdinate””C”oa’_rts’)” Riiies,’éV’
2005, expeditiously and at any exvieéntfwijthin..a'”periodV’i_’:ofTs£–§(
months from the date a cop*y_of_thisAorder_is’.:pAia.¢ed..o*’n the-it
record of the suits.