IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA, BANeA;QR£
DATED THIS THE 13" DAY OF OCTOBER 2§¢S= v
BEFORE_,w__
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE 7?KS'BQP$K$¢fi\
w. P. No . 195 96 dF.:2.O08.V{G1~d=-(iiE?_f:"j~. V"'
BETWEEN
K
S
R RAMACHANDRA
/O RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41_YERS,;*
R/AT KODI 9A;YA_VILLAGE,3
v1DyA?EETA,RoAD; 5'
KENGERI HdBLI; '"'
BANGALog; s03~f,_ * "
. PETITIONER
{By sf: M-V caafipghagfixana REDDY, ADV.,)
AND
..«1
«;KARIYANNA«., _
'w AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
a 3/0 LATE CHIKKAMARIYAPPA
V_"R/A$VKoD:;PALyA VILLAGE.
.".MVIDYAPEETA ROAD,
A,'KEwsEaI?HoaLI, BANGALGRE soura TALUK.
MUfi1RAMAIAH
n;} AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
".5/o LATE CHIKKAMARIYAPPA
-- JR/AT KODI PALYA VILLAGE,
VIDYAPEETA ROAD,
KENGERI HOBLI, BANGRLORE SOUTH TALUK.
MARISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 Y ,
S/O LATE CHIK IYAPPA
'$-
R/AT KODI PALYA VILALGE, 1_ a__
VIDYAPEETA ROAD, Tm-_D____
KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK; _n»"--'
4 K SHIVALINGAM _II_
AGED ABOUT 42 YEAS,
s/o LATE KUPPASWAMY 1, :IE¢
R/AT No.18, I "A" MAIN ROAD, _
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR *i- g
BSK III STAGE,
BANGALORE 85.
'"f];f:_REsédNDEnTs
(By Sri s CHENNARAIE REDDY EDD RI;§ 2 )
THIS w.9. Is EILED Eanyxnaiwdig V '"2
QUASH IHE DEDEE DI, 15;?;2D6é PASSED BY THE
COURT vQE_ TEE 'EDIE gADDL;II¢III CIVIL JUDGE zcca
No.39 "BANGALORE? CITYg' ON_"I.A.NO.8 FILED UNDER
ORDER RULE--10 {ii} OF T33 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
IN o.s;uo, 2366f2004 was, pER..ANNEx~J BY HOLDING
THE SAME Is OPPOSED TO LAW.
grnxs PETITION begins on FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
». THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :
ORDER
“.Thé’.Détitioner herein is assailing the
i”:Lo;¢erxdéted 16.7.2008 passed in O.S.No.2366/04
i jwfiil§ disposing of I.A.VIII.
2. The petitioner herein filed an
Vapplication under Or at 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC
g
seeking leave of the trial Court ‘to! be
impleaded. as one- of the respondents? to {§he’_
suit. The plaintiff in the suitfiopfi¢eéfl=therua
said application. However, ,the atrial ‘fioprte
after considering thev rival ,oontentione :hae j>
come to the conclusion that :iAiVlll filed by
the petitioner herein iegaireé to be allowed
and the petitioner herein ie £$Qfie impleaded
as defendant ޤEb.to the gait} ilnsofar as the
application heine aiio§§§ fig the trial Court,
the petitioner has fig grievance. However, the
petitionerie’a§oiieeee by that portion of the
order” whereini the trial Court has observed
nltvthat %éin¢e, the purchase by the petitioner
iherein”ie daring the pendency of the suit, the
saee ia hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of
‘W”e§ropertf Act and therefore, in this context a
ireeeparate written statement cannot be allowed
*eta be filed.
é
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner’
while assailing the said order would contemdfh.
that the trial Court after Mhavingryoermittedi
the petitioner” to come» on Vrecord lg¢u1dx»fio:’
have made such observations “since Ethe Wsame
would prejudice if
ultimately the petitioner .e5§g$es to file
written statenent and make an eoplication in
that regérdelnlhefloheereation as to whether
the sgmé is hit by Seetion h2 of the Transfer
of Property–hot eonld have been Hmde by the
trial Court while ultimately deciding the suit
l”«and1hot:at this stage and therefore, the order
lfiistnottsustainable.
h”4:lThe learned counsel for respondents 1
‘*li,anq, 2 Nhowever, sought to justify the said
5. In the light of the contentions, a
perusal of the order would indicate that the
trial Court after Lfioticing the prayer put
‘*9
forth in the application–I.A.VIII, has come to
the conclusion that the petitioner has to be
permitted to come on record. Aocordingle; the *
trial Court has directed_»theA filainfiiffiito_h
amend the cause title i*and ” inplead ~ thee
petitioner as defendant ;No.S-_ A baring “the”l
course of the order an observation hae been
made that though the petitioner is entitled to
come on record, he Wbold hot he’entitled to
file :Se§ar§fiei§gritten etatement since he is
claiming .r1ghtfl finder idefendant No.4. This
observation of_the_trial Court, in my View, is
h”aprenatnre» at hthis stage since, apart from
iaeeékifig to come on record the petitioner had
notdlsought} for any other relief and if
d<.'\ultimately, the petitioner seeks for any
'hreliéf to file his written statement in
x"ahiaccordance with law, the petitioner would be
n'prejudiced by such observation. Therefore, to
the extent of said observations being made by
the trial Court, the same cannot be sustained.
l
1:
Accordingly, the said observations are Quéshedu
and it is made clear that if at lalleithefki.
petitioner who is brought””on} reoo:d easK
defendant No.5 in View or *1}A.V:;I~=beingV.
allowed. Seeks to file ifiritteny stitementi by V
filing an appropriate éfipiiostioni the trial
Court would consider tnersaoef?%;its Hmrits
and in aceorgance gfiitheiiawgiwithout being
prejudices fly afi§ one of toe observations made
in the impsgneé area; dstédi16.7.2008.
with the abfie observations, the petition
stands disposed ofi No order as to costs.
!
Ehif¥
Tudge