High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri I N Krishna Madhayastha vs Bangalore Mico Shramajeevi on 6 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri I N Krishna Madhayastha vs Bangalore Mico Shramajeevi on 6 September, 2010
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS TI-IE Gm DAY OF' SEP'FE1\zIBER..B0:i~(:)'~'~Vv

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A.N;'V'ENU(}.Ci7:?Ai;A GOa2\I1:§A 

WRIT PETITION NO. 621    _

BETWEEN :

SR1 I N KRISHNA MADHAYAs1iHA.   
S/O LATE NARASIMHA MADHAYAsm;A;'~--..
AGED ABOUT '77 YEARS; '  '--  L  .. 
RESIDING AT NO.1175, 22N-D_f'Ai" ' .
CROSS, 23RD MA_IN',__ B.S;K"II'S'}'AGE}_._

BANGALORE  '   PETITIONER

(BY SR1 G   '

AND : 

1. BAN(3.:ALORI43-- MLCO SHRAMAJEEVI
KARMIKARA. GUR3~1A~»N1RMANA SAHAKARA

_;sANGHA NIYAMITHA NO. 70/A-3, 14TH
'GROSS, 1sT':v-ALIN', {B.T.S ROAD}

~ wrLsO1\:~GAR1)EN BANGALORE--56O 030

 ' 'V REPRESEN--TED BY ITS SECRETARY

  ANANTIMRAMU

2. "'««..C.\€_"SE+L--°iS'1'RI, MAJOR

s./O.._LA'rE VENKATASUBBA SHASTRY.

G _ 1x20... 75, em CROSS, GANDHI NAGAR.
' "~.BANGALORE--560 009

'  5', ' HSRI ANANTHARAMU.

MAJOR HON"BLE SECRETARY.



BANGALORE MICE) SHRAMAJEEVI
KAREVIIKARA GRUE-IA NIRMANA
S  SANGHA NIYAMITHA

NO. 70/A-~3, 14TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN,

(B.T.S ROAD), WILSON GARDEN
BANGALORE-560 030
4. SR1. L. NAOENDRA PRASAD I '

MAJOR, S/O C.V.L. SHASTRYA

NO. 175, 6TH CROSS *
GANDHI NAGAR

BANGALORE-560 030

5. SMT. SUKANYA ODTANASIT-E:i:AI2A;17-A

W/O D. ONANSHEKARAr--J V .~ A 
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS '  
R/AT FLAT No.24,     S * 
BUILDENG :.~IO...261;.' ROAD 908;-

BLOCK   
1A'12.AJA:\I_

S /O CHIKKANNA  V -
R/AT NO. 667. 253% CROSS,"-aim MAIN
7TH SECTOR HSR LAyO.UT 
BANGALORE 4434 ..   

 f" " i?.AA4Ai{R:S.Hr1A N.N  """" ~ "
 S,/O .LAT;: NARAYANAPPA V
'A_O'1:IJ' AB'QU'3'"6.«_4 YEARS.

R/=AT.__[jJO'.'59_;.,,1S71'MAIN.
rm BLOCK, KQORANIANGALA

V " _ _BANGALCJRE» :95

V.  BASA_PPA'*S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA V
 "ACr.ED"~ABOUT 65 YEARS.
_ AR'/AT No.44/A, 4.f"*MA1N.
 .__ "BEHIND VINAYAKA TEMPLE.
A  ' ~ EKEIADI COMMISSION LAYOST)



11.

KATHRI GUPPE MAIN ROAD
V.V.K NAGAR, }3ANGALORE--85

SR}. SATHYA KUMARA
S/O LATE APPAN SWAMY N
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
R/AT H.NO.51, 1ST CROSS

NAGARAJ LAYOUT, B. NARAYANPURA,

DOORVANI NAGAR POST.
BAN GALORE} 1 6

SR1 ANANDA B.R  *
S/O LATE 13. RAMACHAR _ _
AGED ABOUT 69  --.  '

NO. 905, 6TH cR0ss;"«--13Ti% M.A1N, 

GOKULA 1ST STAGE; 'I»~_:1\a*L'A.1V.jm; OUT,   _

MATHIKERE,_ BANGA1,Q~RE<5zJ; 

SR1 VITTAL  TANARY  _   
s/0   TANTRY .
AGED A_BQU.T 62    
R/,A:rENo..e,4;'1--215T%*_ [\/EAEN,' 1sr..13VL©cK,
BANASHANKAR1 1:: "STAGE;

3RD, PHASE', BANGALQRE'-85

K.P VENK ATEs'WV.ARA:.1,' A
s/A0 LATE  PARAMESWARAN.

,, ._§_AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
-  R/Afr No.57,  APARTMENTS,

1 1'm.c.7R0.ss, 11TH MAIN,

T_ "  EANGALOREOS

 
'-As/0 LA'1'E s. VENKATRAMAN,

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

- R/AT NO.108. PM.M SPRING

A "APARTMENTS, VENKATADRI LAYOUT,
'-- ~BANGALORE--76



RANGASWANIY H

S/O LATE HOMBAHANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.

R/AT NO.41, C MAIN, 11 CROSS.
II PHASE, GIRINAGAR.
BANGALORE

RAJEEVA LOCHAN
S/O LATE B.N. PUTTAN,   
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, '

R/ATNO.17,5"m MAIN ROAD,'-._    _
13TH CROSS, SR1 IAKSHMINARASIMHA  A ' ~ =

KRUPA SARAKKI 
J .P NAGAR BANGALORE--78,VV"

GEETHA JAYGOPI w./O MR'; JAf:AG.Op1 O'

AGED AEOUT 39   A . 

R/AT 07.591, 517E, JURODG  
STREET--52,.SINGAPC*R_E 64-5:317   .. 1- --

REP.      

  .SP1AWAR;AMA.N'-._    

S /O THANOAv_EL

AGED ABOUT--30  '
R/AT No.6; .1S'F;"£+'L0.0I?\.

3RD E"-OROSS', _21$T*M}3:IN.

IF?-'I'I\/I :1 STAG-E.=BANGALORE--76

  ,N1UDLATAI-'i'"" "
.  S,/_O'IATE'¢THIRUMALALAN,
" D "AGED ABQ"t]T 53 YEARS

._ "-'.._R/AT'_NO~..132, B.I-I.E.L LAYOUT
* , 2ND STAGE EXTENSION.

""'1PA:#r'1'ANAGERE SOUTH

RAJEBQAJ ES HVVARI NAGAR

;  BAN GALORE560 098

 HIS. KRESHNA MURTHY

S/O LATE H.C. SEET mH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS



1.8.

20.

R/AT NO.19, IIND "B" CROSS,
NEAR VIDYAPEETA CIRCLE.
BANGALOREQ8

H.R. VISWESWARA SASTRY

S/O LATE  §SHNA SASTRY.
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS.

NO. 81 "SR1 KESHAV" IST AVEi\TU1'3-=;A

3RD MA1N,TEACHER"S COLONY  j; 

KORAMANGALA, BANOA1.ORE-'3V4 "

SHAMS UL ISLAM

S/O LATE M.A. SALAM, 

AGED ABOUT 62  _  
R/AT NO.50. COCK BURN ROAI},, 

SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALO_R--E}'5i'    _

DEVANDRA'S.V__KAMA'I'H."«

S/O SRI SPiYA3vIAN.NA »
AGED AB'QUT__3g.1  _
R/AT NO.3_3_s, 7TH  
INVI)USTS.R1A3;:;;S._UBURB, " ~ ,
NEAR s't3§;--:RAn4A;~IyAs'»\rA1\&Y
TE.M1=LE,. NI':"SQRE-'GAS .. ' -

SR1 ._SOQI5lYAI§IARAfKAN
S/O LATE GV..RAMA1V1URTHY

, ._;AGEI3 ABOUT 60 YEARS

-  -R/A71' NO.4o7'/BATH MAIN,

B _BLO.CK, VINAYAKANAGAR,

A " I<.O'NENAOAGRAHARA,

'-"..'VBANt}.A_LOr}2e."'_'&°» 
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF' INDIA, PRfsjYlN--G'_rvTOV.gL}ASH'i, 

THE ORDER DATED 18.9.2009 PASSED' ONLA;'1\3Q.'1_5_I1\¥"O.S.
No.40?/2000 PASSED VIDE ANNE-E'_'"BY TH'E_'PR1.N-Ci1?'AL

CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) BANGALORE' RURAL AT.13A1\zGAL"OREV.i
AND AFTER PERUSING  REC.ORDs, ...T1~iEsEf

PROCEEDINGS AND BY CALLEJG Ti~1E"sA:viE FROM THE
COURT BELOW, AND cO.NaE"g.U'ENTLY" 'VREJECT THE
APPLICATION LA. NO.15._}?"ELE*D E.Y"'r§iP;'REsPONDENT NOS.5

TO 27 UNDER ORDER 1 RULE’1.0′[2) OF-.c;PC–.._

This Writ’ féetition «for pdeliminary hearing,
this day. the C0uj;ft_._:made’the f.O!1jOwing”:

_ .P1aintii’fV_isVthepetitioner and defendant Nos. 1 to 4

. it°-are*—ti*1e»-.”respondents;AV Respondent Nos. 5 to 27 made an

Order 1 Rule 10(2) Of CPC to permit

them On record as additional defendants.

nOu§ti…the appiication was Opposed by the petitioner, the

t_ri’a1-.«”COurt having found merit in the appiication, has

~~-alilowed the same. This writ petition is directed against

/’

5′

the order permitting the applicants to come on record as

additional defendants.

2. Sri G. Narayana v.’Rao,_ i l.VCo1;;ns_elll’

appearing for the petitioner conltendledl

Nos. 5 to 2.7 are not necesslary:”parties~_ar1dlt}:1é’..:;:rial ‘Court’

without considering the.V.objee’tio:fis- tiled tolthe application
in the proper perspective allowed the

same and he1:1._.c’e_,_ interiferenlce islealled
3, …. ;per’ased’the.w;tit papers.

4. ll The -poirit rforl”‘consideration is, whether the

applicant Nos”. 2’? are necessary parties and whether

Vitiiexxltrialfld has committed any irrationality or illegality

in”a.lloW’irig»l_theapplication filed by them.

it as 5;”. Indisputedly, there are various proceedings

— lb-etwdeen the parties. The trial Court has observed that,

‘Q

/7’

the applicants have interest in the suit property more

particularly, on account of the observations this

Court in the order dated i6.1o.2oosf—- peleelerd

W.P.No.3211/2007. Having regal-d.fieeeeaiinge”

that have taken place between the

defendants claim that they are*V.tthe.Vr1ienibe’rsVV”‘-oi”the first

respondent~society arid have” ‘a_c’qiiired ‘riglitf: title and
interest in the suit property steps taken by

the said society’ the in their favour.

it ‘ ‘eiepin§g’VVin’yievJ themobservations made by this
Court in the aforeifiotieeltii«writ petition, the trial Court is

justified in applicants to come on record as

. .'”‘a.dc1itioiia1 defendants, as prima facie they have an

schedule property. Applicants being

necessavry parties, the LA. has rightly been allowed. There

neither irrationality nor illegality in consideration of the

‘application and in passing the impugned order.

/_’.

In the result, the writ petition is devoid of merit and

stands rejected.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner geeks t–iIne.:

permit the petitioner to amend causetitle ot1_the;”suiit4’in_.ithe

triai Court. Two weeks time stand g§a12.ted …e’1i1enc€:’tii.e~..,.

causetitie of the suit.

hrp/brns