.....1....
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED 'mm 11-13: 151*! DAY or 8EP1'Eb!B ER :""4 K
BEFORE
THE Horrnm mz.JUafi'iCE«3¢_.£§.
Sri. B.K.Lokesh, V __ ._ f
S[o.Mr.KrishnaMurtl1y," ' '-
Age: 28 years, " _ .
R/at 140.158/1, 8"3?Cro3S; --
III Main, 2;
Bangalorc -_ $8., 5;; ~ A
(By srLsu;;5LV~s%;:Rs;s:-,__5.a§;; ~ 1' : i»
S[r2_.1atc Iviuthaiash,
Age: 55 years, A V
'R['atA'No.'~158/ 1, S*31'Cross,
] RIII hiiain,-fiihamarajpct,
2} sa§it1_=_AmT:: mma,
W/o.»--17ate ,
Age- 53 years;
% if K.Santhosh Kumar,
"$,"o.latc Kcmpaiah,
; Age: 25 years;
R--2 as 3 an: residing at
No.1517, Saneguruvanahalli,
Kamakshipalya, Sannakkibylu,
Yeshawanthapura Hobli, .
Bangalore North Taluk.
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 %
Constituiion of India praying to quash the -j<')iIic.r_ ' ".:!:at43ti'T
25.03.2003 one passed by the 29th Additional ja:.;vi1_;1udge,; J
Bangalore in O.S.No-.785/2005 which fiafouxgd at L'
This Pctifion coming' on for prel1rmn;' '; '
the Court made the following:--- V 4_
onnmga
1. This writ petition the 'bidet dated
25.03.2008. By thqsaid filed under
Order 1 Rule 10({;2)4"r'j;{§€rV mi petitioner in this
Writ Petition. 'by Petitioner had med
I.A.No.3 the respondent nol hemin against
respondents’-2 8Lt1d ‘3’ specific performance of the
_ay*eeLt.;r:_{1’1t’i of safe 0$.O3.1999.
‘2u. »A : «P¥cjtit;ij§3i1cr.VA:VCo;_1tended before the Court beknw that he had
from respondent no.1 by a registered
V sale ci§’:::a.1.;et.?:”.V'()8. 12.2003. He wanted to come on record as a
‘h The Court below has dismissed the application
that the dispute in the suit was as regards the
VT :’_4t:éX€:CiV;ttion of the sale ageement dated 05.03.1999 in favour of
” by defendants-2 and 3 (respondents-‘2 and 3 herein)
.. 3 ..
and for the purpose of establishing Whether such an agreement
had in fact taken place and whether the plaintifi’ was for
a decree of specific performance of the
hexein was not a necessary party go» be as’ ad:
plaintifli In the cireumstancesgtheee T
rejected.
3. Counsel appeariog for that the
plainfifi ~– Iespondentv A have title to the
property and it is. “owner of the same.
He contends has sold the
propertyvifl under a regstered sale
deed dated eiemroze if the petitioner is not
imp£eaded”‘a,t Eeaef defeddant in the suit, his intezest will be
_ advefi:eely~ VV
of the petitioner is that he has purchased the
and that any decree to be passed in
V -V dfwill affect his tights over the suit property,
u have made an application to come on recozed as a
.’ defendant and not as a plainfifi’. Therefore, there is no merit in
‘d “‘tIie contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
, the Writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. It
.. 4 ..
is ncedinss to observe that the petitioner can make negrcssary
application to come on mcoxd as a defendant and van
applicafion is made, the (301111 below shall
merits and pass appnopriate orders. c_osts._I ” ” ‘-.1: . ‘
dgé
PKS