I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22"" DAY OF JANUARY 2010
BEFORE)
THE HONBLE MR. JUS'I'1CE3RA\/'1 MAL11\¢1m*fI{T'A%
WRET PFIPITEON No_3837/2006 {G1\/i_A-'--{-. ti\i§*--
BETWEEN
Smt.Bharathi R S,
W/0.Ha.ssan Khan.
Aged about 47 yrs.,
N02909. 14" 'A' Cross,
2"'-' Main. BSK 2"" Sf{a§g<3, V _ ._ "
BangaE01'ew56O O70. _ VA , T..Petit.i0r1<:1'
(By Sri C M Naga1bhL;sv1i'e113aTv;V__TA§E\r;]=.T'*Df_fV
1. TR 131,11"L1-3h0j':l1_é1:nét-,...'
S'/Q . 1:1t,e "V R¢112gé'x»g3pa1,
_ _V Ageejtil ab<:)_1.i'--E'. 51
151/21.N'0'".V.329/I3, Near
' 5»-.'"A§\/T21"'1'A.L1'f.1'li 'l'6L't'1*i:T1g Ta1k.1'es.
_V , V AH' igt1.'}';_»}')E3 V111 ._
T " ._f'1-§__'e.1fi§3a1 };:1.1.1"a1 Agrah am.
171 age; 1'.
_.I'3:1ijtg'a'l<)1*e?~560 040.
AA 'T K:r1'sh'r1a Dass,
Simfie cieceased by LR.
e1) S1nt.Pankajakshi,
Aged about 60 years.
W/olatcr R Krishna 921$,
R/a..No.95, APK Road,
11 Block. Thyaga1*21j211121g211'.
BaI1gai()re-28,
(ctausetiitie amended vide
order dtcE.22.1.10}
3. R Chaxldraxmouii,
S/0.1a'€,e Rangappa.
Aged about 46 yrs,
R/a.N0.7 D¢1{it.u1"i _
Rama1'1ayak.ka Lane, 'V
Gollarapet, _
I3ar1ge11ore-56O G02. _ .. Respondents
This WP is filed A;51:i(_:.’;e 227 of the
Consti.’t.ut.i0114of.__I11di’2i’,” pr§:y_i’11g~-toV-q«1,1éLsh/set aside the
order on EA:::V~..r”CEE1i%’€d€ “”15fE_I passed in OS
No.1 180 / *1 99,0 ~–by?_ rm»; .C;'(;1,_11’i.”()fs151- Addl. City cm: Judge
[CCC 2] at B:;13′;;_g211Ot’e_C3~ii;yA_ (A~nn{–;x{1re–D).
‘I’I’1–i$ *VVrVi”§ Pii§’1’.i.ii-Gfil’C()II1iI’1g on for éldmission this
day, _tl’1e (iL~)1n”a: . p”2_–zss::(1″i.’1’1e fvi1’1g:
_ . . . .
V%’p.<;:i;1.t',i01'1<:I"s application made under Order 1
Ryile seeking to implc-rad herself party to the
A suit. {Cf pa1't;ii:1'0n was rejectcci by the impugned order.
' V'}r¥e?1(:e, this presezli, pet.i{;io1's2..
ML"
‘\
_’!
2. Sri Nagab1’mshan, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that there is no valid ground to
reject the petitioner’s application and moreover she is a
just and necessary party to the proceedings. V
3. The respondents have been a’n:d«hau\/e.’ 2
remained absent.
4. On hea1*ing the eourisel i”o1*”.1;lie petiti’or1,er., Ijjarn of;
the considered View that petitio;1_:1’equi;res to be
allowed for the tihatiwhenfihere is no specific
grouz1d'””1;n.ati€. ot=i:if~Ejy~.t’fl1e plai’r’1’tifi”. the applicant claims
to llawg: alewgai 1′:i’s;;gl1’t’v{).\:lf’e:r4″1.l1e schedule property, it would
be just Emil .n’e(te:5sa’i*y for the Court to allow the
a’p.;51ic,;atio(1 bet”oi*’e”oo1’1sidering the suit. Tlierefore, I am
:VfV)’f’UTEQrCV(5I1$lfié:.i’€d View that in order to avoid muitiplicity
of44_prot:ee’d–1ngs, it is just and necessary to allow the
Aappl7ic:at.i()r1 for impleadment.
MW
4
For the 21.’l”oresaiid reascms, the order dated
15.11.2005 on l.A.l filed by the petitioner under Order 1
Rule 10 CPC in OS No.1 180/1990 passed __}_3y the
learned I Additional City Civil and Sessions::.fJ.ti’dAge,
Bangalore City (CCH No.2] is set aside. ‘_
petitioner for inipleeiclment is allowed.
T he writ petition st.e_»;*1d__s dis’13.()iéed ofi”‘é::;;fl()i°di_i}1g_gly_
Bkmvy; …. ‘A