1
WP I 5687 [2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 157'" DAY OF' DECEMBER, 2008
BEFORE
THE I-I()N'BLE MRJUSTICE B.S.PA'I_'_Ii;'- I u
wan pnnngg r:o.155s7z2oos ' J
BETWEEN:
SR1 MAHATMA GANDHI SWACHATHA
ABIRUDHI SANGHA (R),
REPRESENTED BY ITS
(a) PRESIDENT, P.VENKA'FE§'>H, .
s/0 PUTTAPPA,
42 YEARS.
(b) SECRETARY,'~».. ;j_
CHAN}? fi..l3_P'z'F:. S. ," 31;; " ,
S/O3SHVL}NGk§.PFf5¢,.V -. '
44 YEARS,' ' '
KHATERE {3OMPLEX,_ "
HEAD omega, * ' -- '
cH1frRA:)u'2GA.. _
- ._(_BY wgafiuxfifi N-.--*!--Di'G, ADV.)
--.
1". = fi'*::J.$ €io§;!£'MIs:§sI'{>NER,
ma MHNICSEPALITY,
CHITR-ADURGA ~-- 5?? 501.
" " " .. ARAv:'Nb PANDE,
* VS/0. S.I'~¥.PAND¥3,
" '37.fzEA1a>s,
"ZR/0 NEAR VENKATESHWARA
« ___7'FALKIES SANTHI MAIDANA,
CHITRADUFEGA - 577 501.
A. (BY SR1 B.M.SIDDAPPA, ADV.)
..PETI'I'IONERS
..RESPONII}ENTS
WP 1568'J*'f2008
2
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 85 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF DIRECTION OR ORDER TO THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE
(JR.I)N.3' AT CHITRADURGA TO DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED
BY THE RESPONDENTQ UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) READ WITH
15E OF CFC (ANNEX~B) BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER ON
3.12.2008 PASSED IN O.S.NO.3I2/’2008 ON INFERLOCEUTORY
APPLICATION UNIDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) R/W 151 C}FvC’PC”-‘(IA
N033 BY I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR’.DN.} AT CHITRADUR_Ci;%.AS’V;~PER’
ANNEX-D.
THIS PE’I’I’I’ION comma ON FOR PREL1MiN.n_.i§f;r, :HEARIf§§§,”»V
THIS DAY. THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER I
1. The application filed by the oéokiag’ I
to be implcaded as an addjfionaldoienfiant i:o”tI1t:_.s1i§it filed by
the petitioner in O.S.No.3I2I Aggrieved by the
same, is
2. it is§*n¢:– in 2nd respondent who filczti the
application was ailottod with the suit
:_p:mp§:rty “” “the municipality and the period of
‘got He moved the concerned authority for
cxtonoion of The extension has been ordered by the
‘Dg:puty Cognmissioner on 10.09.2008. However, in the
the m.u.n.1c’ ipahty passed a resolution resolving to
the suit schedule property in favour of the petitioner Vida
“=i,t$’ msolution dated 04.09.2068. The suit is filed by the
petitioner seeking a judgment and decree for permanent
WP 1563772008
3
injunction against the City Municipality, Chitradurga, not to
interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment. flixsj the
211*’ respondent was a lessee prior to the a11ot’:I:13.e;t;_t_”‘
favour of the petitioner and as his lease has bees.
an order dated 10.09.2008 passed’. ‘_
Commissioner, he is held to be a profielj neeessazy:
the proceedings.
3. I do not find any of ju1isd’iciion in the
order passed by the court spplication fiied by
the 211*’ res.;iponciefit”._~to¢V zeeonttl. Whether the lease is
validly extexided’ or petitioner has been put in
possession. “lease in his favour made on
:-‘{i4;’o9.2e6a an mattizeifs ‘that have to be tried in the suit. For
iiLv.3’VeV.off:..the 21” respondent becomes necessary as
_ i his.io1:e1ests are likely to be affected.
xE’.’e,’11ceV,”‘I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the
s_a_im__ e._is”ti:£en3fore dismissed.
SCI/’f
Iudgg
KK