IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAHA ' 1 AT BANGALORE H ' _ Dated this the 24m clay ofJuly,_2QI§)'8.V " BEFORE THE HOIPBLE MR JUSTICE xiv HHYLEI§¢_2:HA Writ Petition No 42'1"'H«C:5F°2_006.l'Q'V_ BETEEER KOLTE PATIL DEVELOPERS. I";II~.II'I'E»D _ BEING A PUBLIC LIMITED COPAPANY I _ INCORPORATED uNI:>ERV'THE_ v_ C' COMPANl_ES_AIC'I', 1956, RAv1NC_nfs RIEGD OFFICE AT I\'}Av1PI;:TH,gJALAc;A0'Iq,' MAHA_RRs.H'rRA';'.AND !3RA_NGH*OFF!~CE AT NO 221,! 1 1,; I531' RLCQR,.j".PA'R1r; WEST" vI1frAL"Ia1ALIR:AVVRoAD, BAMGAL-ORE REPRESENTED'? BY I'I*s"DIRE_C'roR NARESH A'-PATKIVLH PETITIONER I % I5; : C}"~[;'i/'i'.:=.hwanath, Adv] 5:: H3 RAMAANJANVAVPPA' V 3/ QBACHANNA -I .w..J0R;'IwR/AT MENASI VILLAGE DO.D'D,AB.ALIjAPUR TALUK ; . '''vIBANGAjLORE DISTRICT REP'? BI}: HIS PA HOLDER H R CHANDRA "s/<3_I< H GOWDA No 9», AECS, 3RD STAGE : NAGASHETIYHALLI I _ "BANGALORE THE SECRETARY NTI HOUSING CO--OPERATIVE SOCIETY NO.5, 'G' PALACE _ a had been filed by the respondent
V” V ,3 co—opera1:ive society by name NTI Housing
for deciaration respect at’ 32
V in Sy No 13/} of Nagashettihalli village,
V’ north taluk and a consequential relief of
2
ORCHARDS APAR’I’MEN’I’S
N051, RMV EXTENSION
6’1′?-i CROSS, ‘BTH MAIN ROAD
EBANGA LORE~80 … RESPONDEWFS
{By Sri N Manohar, Adv for R-1; A’
M] s K S Nagaraja Rae Gr. Associates, Adv :_. A4
THIS WRIT PE’I’I’I’ION ES FILED I,J.N_DER_-ART’iCLES”225 AND» _
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION on ;INiJIA’ ~ PRAYzree’ To’ ‘QUASH –.
AND/OR SET ASWIDE THE ORDER i)A’FED..–e3~1e.-2006′ PAss._Ei5e_23Y
THE mm ADDL cmr CIVIL JUDGE, can No 16, BAN(;iALOR–Ei.N es
No855OF’1996,VIDE ANNEXURE-0 AND_ETC., 2 % _
THIS PETITION COMING t5’:~:.:i:'<)R o?éD.2:+:i2s":THi$ DAY, THE
comm' MADE THE P'OLLQWiNG:_.._.
made an attempt but
fafled 1:0 get -'as a defendant in a pending
suit in C')S:__no 355 on the fie of City Civil Judge,
the order'-dated 3-I-2006 passed by the learned
court has given cause for this writ
on behalf of the petitioner, Sri G L
-d learned counsel, submits that the petitioner
” wlias substantial interest in the subject property; that the
3
2. It is in such a suit, the present writ pefifioner filed
an appiieation under Order I Rule 10 read
151 CPC praying that the applicant be
additional defendant and is
merits. The claim of the appltcantfietitioneif
applicant had been put in extent
of land in Sy No 13 by
the society; that the the }and and
was in ttiat 1: had a substantial
interest and therefore the
applicant _WaAS’d Va party.
3. It isdrejeetion of application for impleadment in
pet_i_tion._ . d ” –
A. interest of the a.pplicant–petitioner,
in Vthongh_V”‘Atiie.:applicant–mtitioner got into possession as an
V –V necessary the applicant–petitioner to come on record
it it ‘ additional defendant to not only place the correct facts
the court but also to defend its own interest; that
” “the learned judge of the trial court has not appreciated
4
respondent–plai:ntiff in the suit had come up with an
incorrect version; that though the
placed materials before the trial court to
Bangalore Beveiopment Authoritgr it
extent of land in Sy No 13/land of a
alone 32 guntas, as claimed left
out of acquisition V trying to
obtain a decree to oiiiappiicant in View
of the “the society, which
had that the society and
the loggerheads and in View
of this state of’ aiIV’a”‘irsVA’ 3 is no guarantee the society
of ‘society; that in such circumstance, it was
8
11. I do not find any illegality or the
impugled order passed by the learned judge~.ef
court rejecting the application of the
for impieadment in a ‘ for
interference. Interim order Qf stay
petition is vacated and the isfiismissed.