IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY or NovEMBER,A.2'oo'9f"sj'--,:.. BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE BHAK'1iHA_ifAi*sALA'sV WRIT PETITION No.64274}*2oo9'(GM%'CP(:3 _ BETWEEN: Sri Kaleem Ahmed Shirigoti 3 _ -. Age 54 years, occ: the Assistant Registrar'-.. Of Cowop Societies and the Iiqtiidéitrnr of». ' _ Maratha Co--op Bank Ltd., Htibliv, P;/o-"i4Iu'b.l'i... ' . ' W 2- Petitioner (By Sri Srihar_shiA.s.ENee!.opa11t:, Adifi; V» AND: ' it A it K V 1. Sri :,AbduliiRiasooi;< , ii ._ S / o7Gou semo'hi'Mr3iga11ii Age 5 E V years', occj' R/o House No.21, G.rOu«ri_.d floor, Indracharya apartment, N52§.gas~hettiko'ppAa road, Hubli 23. __S/ o Mahadevappa Kawade, " _rAge VVE'53_iyvca*:s,_:.occ: business, _ "RIO I\%"ei_2'_1~r__ Home for aged ' .Viveka.na:_1d Colony Road, Keshwapur Hubli. . -- A Respondents (By Sri Vsémtosh M.S, Adv. for R2. Sri M.R.Mul1a, Adv. for R1)) . This Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Coinstitution of India praying to call for records pertaining to the case O.S.No.-402/2006 from the Court of III Acidl. Civil " '"Judge(Sr.dn] Hubli and etc. This Petition coming on for orders this day, theftiourt made the following: ORDER
The petitioner, who wanted togirnpleadl*hir11–self party ” =
defendant in O.S.No.402/2006 on’.._the_–‘file er “11: Vifisddiijtioriale
Civil Judge(Senior Division) before’ Cilourt
under Articles 225 and 227 Constitutzionvj of India
praying for quashing the._zo~rde:r /2009 passed on
I.A.No.2 filed under oi~e1er._i’12u1ve_V 1o(2)*~vreae1ygx;$ith Section 151
of the Code of i_C4iv:il»i’Proo:edtrre’iiat.’_Ann’eXu–re “A”.
it _for the petitioner submits that
respondent”*«No’;2V the owner of the open site land
measuring 151.5 sq. yards and
/~’.C:”1’r}CE;12St1riHg 81.3 sq. yards situate at Keshwapur,
Hubjli. No.2 mortgaged the property in favour of
the petitioner-bank on deposit of title deeds under registered
ci’:j1eie’.:i.._ dated 11/08/1999 for loan up to limit of
AAli’§slSA,OO,OOO/~. But respondent No.2 with an intention to
V Wavoid liability, appears to have entered into an agreement of
3. There is no representation for respondent No.1.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2..’sub.rni–ts
that there is no iiiegality or infirmity in the impughed:ioi?deirL§’. .
5. The question that arises ‘fo1*-con.-sideraition infthi’s-.
petition is:
Whether the petitioner’ ~..prope”r and nece.ssary”:
party for adjudication of -suit?»
Answer to the above question the
6. Acccardjng p§5t1ition¢1:i%”‘:d:ebt’Essa secured and if
there wereivtoxhe any=tra–nsaction=orvencunibrances, it cannot
come in; the way”o:f~ ..thepe.titior1er proceeding as against the
secured debt for reutoiferjriofioan amount. The triai Court has
. _ righ.ti§( urejectediithe irnpleading application.
‘ ” 11’i.__the_”reisult, writ petition fails and the same is hereby
d’isrn’irssed.* ofcosts.