Petitioner is assailing the order dated 07/01/2015 on I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.8669/2010 on the file of XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru.
2. Respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 4 are defendants in O.S.No.8669/2010 filed for specific performance of sale agreement dated 12/12/2007 in respect of Survey No.1 to an extent of 3 acres 10 guntas situated at Basavanapura Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru.
3. The petitioner herein filed I.A.No.3 to come on record along with others as defendants in O.S.No.8669/2010 contending that the impleading applicants have an interest over the suit land i.e., Survey No.1 of Basavanapura Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru. The said application was opposed by the defendants stating the they are not necessary parties to the suit and they are not parties to the agreement which is sought to be quashed.
4. The trial Court, by its order dated 07/01/2015, rejected I.A.No.3 filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10(2) of C.P.C to get himself impleaded as defendant, which are impugned in this writ petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the writ papers.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impleading applicants are necessary parties to the suit since they claim right over the suit schedule property i.e., Survey No.1 measuring 3 acres 10 guntas of Basavanapura Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru and in respect of the same, the suit in O.S.No.16174/2006 is pending wherein, defendant Nos.2 to 4 are parties. It is further submitted that the suit filed by respondent Nos.2 to 4 is a collusive suit. It is stated that the defendant Nos.2 to 4 are not the owners of the suit schedule property and falsely they have executed an agreement in favour of the plaintiffs. As the impleading applicants have right and interest in the suit schedule property, they are necessary parties and the trial Court ought to have allowed application
I.A.No.3 to come on record as additional defendants in the suit filed by respondent No.1.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submit that the impleading applicants are not necessary parties and the impleading applicants have no right and interest over the suit schedule property, they have not yet established their right over the suit schedule property. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that the defendants i.e., respondent Nos.2 to 4 have denied the agreement and they are contesting the suit, as the impleading applicants have no manner of right and interest over the suit schedule property as on this day. The trial Court has rightly rejected the application.
8. The only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the trial Court is justified in rejecting I.A.No.3 filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10(2) of C.P.C.
9. The suit is one for specific performance of the agreement dated 12/12/2007. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 to 4 are parties to the agreement dated 12/12/2007 in respect of Survey No.1 measuring
3 acres 10 guntas situated at Basavanapura Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru.
10. The suit filed by the impleading applicant in O.S.No.16174/2006 for declaration and injunction in respect of the suit schedule property i.e., Survey No.1 is still pending and no right is determined either in respect of impleading applicants or in favour of any other person.
11. The contention of the impleading applicant that the suit is a collusive suit, cannot be appreciated, on going through the written statement filed by the defendant which is a part of the writ petition. The defendants i.e., respondent Nos.2 to 4 have denied the execution of agreement itself and the contention of the petitioner/impleading applicant is that suit is liable to be rejected.
12. The trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the impleading applicants under Order I Rule 10(2) of C.P.C. and has rightly observed that if at all the petitioner has any right and interest in the suit schedule property, they are at liberty to file separate suit and they have remedy available under law.
13. I find no error or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. Sd/- JUDGE
Comments