High Court Karnataka High Court

Devanga Sangha vs Smt Lingamma Dead By Her Lrs on 25 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Devanga Sangha vs Smt Lingamma Dead By Her Lrs on 25 September, 2008
Author: B.S.Patil
----1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 2573 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 

nsmm Q Q
was Hon-am MRJUSNOE 3.3. PA'_I_'-fi;  ' '    

wmr PETITION no.11744 q13_g}_oo3  _  u  k

EETWEEN:

Dcvanga Sangha,

No. 14, flevanga Sangha Hostel 

Sampangiramanagar,
Bangaiom ---- 560 027,
Represented by its
H011. Secmtaxy,

Sri.Y.V.Srim'vasaMur1:11y._...... '» %' «

(By sz:.n.R.Basay§$;a§§ppéQ Arm   "

Smt.LingVéLm1'§11a,V  I. 
Dead by her.L.Rs. 

1) Rathngmmé,  ., V' 

 * _ _ 

 V2) :sm:.Jc:h¢w'_a~a m  ma,

  54 years,

2  _3) Sm.t.c1:_oo;iéafi1ani aha' s

Rangaziayaki,

 o.Ga;ia1a1aju, 52 years,

    residing at No.6,

"afiith Cross, 1091 Main,

Bangalore - 560 O27.

' 4) Sri. Bette Gcrwda,

Son of Siddc Gowda, 43 years,

 PE"PI'!'IONER



Residing at No. 1 I 1 1/ 1,
1'"? Main Road, Byatarayanapura, V. 
Bangalore.  

(By Sri. H. M. Mariyappa, Adv.)

This Writ Petition is fled under Arfic1csV--2,§._':6.V&"A--22? at the 
Constitufion of India praying to .3et~-aside thee--..c4;rderfA.dé:ted' ; A'
02.09.2008 ed on I.A.No.19  under £)It1e1"--._1',1(}i;2) ~

CFC in O.S.No.4683/1994 by the }{IVaA¢':idl.  '(:Ai.xri11dj"~.J;:::ge,
Bangalore (OCH-28), videAnne::1;1we~F.'*-A_   '  * 

This ?etition, comm" g onddvfofdotdere'  the Court
madethefolk3wing:- _.    

O1. Learned cogmsel ivtr-flies notice for all

the responden¥§s'.'«A:;:jd£;s     short compass, the

case isV':;-up   with the consent of the

parties.  _ ''

G2. 4; Pefifin2fiue1~:V1;e:efi1"V'is«"eh: plaintifi' before the Court below.

.'  "V'i'21eV'_'of ffiemjeefifioner is directed against the order

  passed on f.A.No.19 filed Imxier Order 1 Rule

830.4683/1994 seeking to implead respondent

“n9.T4 herein as an addifional defendant since he had purchased
schedule pmperty during the pendency of the dispute.

VA The Court below has dismissed the said application

that since he is the purchaser pendente lite it was

.. 4 ….

before this Court in R.F’.A.No.1805/2005, this Court had
permitted the petitioner herein to éreplead ‘.-.’s1’i.Be:t*£§:V:g’0txrci_.’g1 as

additional respondent. In such circumstances,

should have allowed the application as

already a party in the appeal ”

gassed. in the very suit.

06. In any event, of the
controversy raised andv Bettegowda had
purchased the V’eiy_. matter of the
dispute, ihecessary party to the
pmeeedtngst angle the order under
challengge trsst of law. Writ Petition therefore

deserves to..hetta12éi.’-is{“‘za:11oifé*e(i§ J The impuged order is set aside.

The 333p}ieafioa” by? the petitioner seeking to implead the

A’ as defendant no.2 is aficwed.

sal-

judge

[grate