High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri. Veman vs Smt.Yeshodha on 19 February, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri. Veman vs Smt.Yeshodha on 19 February, 2010
Author: Subhash B.Adi
WP 530.6052?/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010,
BEFORE _  .
THE I-ION'BLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASI-I ;:3:._f"AD:ii  is
WRIT PETITION No.6052'7:,--'2G»1--O    
BETWEEN: I  I  A  V' 

SRLVEMAN
S /0 VENKARADDI MANKANI 

AGE:37 YEARS, OCC:BU_SINESS,-----  
R/O"SVENPA"   Y. 
31,v1sHwEsHARNAGAR",~  a_  .   
HUBLI. --   .;.RETI'TI'Q1_\I--ER

(BY sRI.Y;sAUARE;S-H :§i£;z;=:1N1-,-- A-Ev)  
AND:  V 'V V '

1. SMT.Y'A_SHODA 
5W»/Q JITENDRA MANKANI
 '~'AGE:38 YEARS.,...QvCC:HOUSEHOLD,
A ,  R/'F3 "S'J_ENPA"
 ~ _ 3  VISHWESI-IARNAGAR,

2.  SRIYMOHAN
" s / 0, VENKARADDI MANKANI

 A'GEi;41 YEARS, 0CC:BUs1NEss,

* A-..,R/O "SVENPA"

»_ ':31, VISHWESHARNAGAR,

A 'HUBLI. .....RESPONDENTS

T “(BY SRI.S.K.KAYAKAMATi~I, ADV FOR C/R1)

WP No.60527/2010

the original plaintiff to conduct the case effectively. Such
transposing, would cause more harm to the original plaintiff.
in this regard, he further submitted that the vap.p’licant
defendant No.2, has taken a conflict stand
plaintiff and has filed an application for
properties, which is not the case
the circumstances, if defendant _l\lo.éiiis itransposed: as
No.2, it will affect the interest of ‘tlie”plaintiff._l_ if i

3. Learned counsei for’~i.the lsubrnitted that

no prejudice would be caused_ptol’_the if the application

is al1ow.e’d:= .._H’elfurther.:s’ubrnits~~.iiat there is possibility of
withdraxlxringél »t.Vdetrirl’_lental to the interest of the

defendants.’alpilindlllnoilsuchélpprehension is there as alleged by

the tfigfendant No.2, _____ _«I-lowever, in the event if there is any

«.plai_ntiff withdrawing the suit, the defendant No.2

‘fileiiapplieahtion seeking transposing herself as plaintiff to

–p continuebthefsuit. But transposing defendant No.2 Who is

if ligcoliitesting against the plaintiff and has taken conflicting stand

.’ sgsinslt the plaintiff would harm the case of the plaintiff instead

= “ofserving the purpose. Hence, it may not be proper for this

92%?

WP No.60527/2010

court to allow the said defendant to be transposed as plaintiff
along with present plaintiff when there is admittedly conflict of

interest between them.

4. In these circumstances, petition is a11o_xifed’.”i_

dt.16.01.2010 is set aside with Iibertyto defe1’ida.i9ii’t.. tjiev

circumstances warrant she may seek, for–trxa5nspds.ing he1=s__e1f; as

plaintiff.

s«=jigJUDGE