1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2013

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.BHAKTHAVATSALA

WRIT PETITION No.25832/2013 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN :

1 SRI. VASANTHA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, HINDU,

2 SMT. MAHADEVAMMA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

3 SRI. MAHADEVANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

ALL ARE CHILDREN OF LATE CHITRALINGAPPA, & RESIDING AT ANESIDRI VILLAGE, TALUK, DISTRICT PIN-577 546. ...PETITIONERS

(By Sri. MURTHY. K, ADV.)

AND :

1 SRI H. NINGAPPA S/O M. HANUMANTHAPPA, 2

MAJOR, R/AT ADIVALA VILLAGE, HIRIYUR TALUK, , PIN-577 546.

2 THE MANAGER GRAMINA BANK, J.G. HALLY BRANCH, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURAGA DISTRICT, PIN-577 546.

3 SRI. HALLI HANUMANTHAPPA S/O LATE H.HANUMANTHAPPA, MAJOR, R/AT ADIVALA VILLAGE, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT PIN-577 546. ...RESPONDENTS

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF , PRAYING TO QUASH ANNX- D THE ORDER DATED 1.10.12 PASSED IN IA NO.4 BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HIRIYUR, CHITRADURGA DIST., IN OS NO.28 OF 2011 AND ALLOW THE WP OR FURTHER PASS ANY APPROPRIATE ORDERS FOR IMPLEADING PROPOSED DEFENDANT IN COURT BELOW.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: 3

ORDER

Petitioners who are plaintiffs in O.S.No.28/2011 on the file of Civil Judge at Hiriyur, is before this Court, praying for quashing the Order dated 01.10.2012 passed on an application I.A.IV filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of

CPC in the above said suit at Annexure ‘D’.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed a suit in O.S.No.28/2011 on the file of Civil Judge at Hiriyur against one Ningappa,

Manager of Gramin Bank and Halli Hanumanthappa for the relief of declaration that the plaintiffs are lawful owners of the suit schedule property, viz., 14 acres 31 guntas of land in Survey No3/1P1 situated at Adivala village, Javagondanahally Hobli, Hiriyur Taluk and declare that alleged Order dated 10.02.2000 made in execution case No.42/2000 on the file of Civil Judge at Hiriyur, is not binding on the plaintiffs' rights over the suit schedule property and to declare that the alleged registered gift 4 deed dated 27.09.2010 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 is not binding on the plaintiff’s rights over the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction. In that suit, the petitioners filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC, seeking permission to implead State Bank of Mysore, Adivala

Branch as defendant No.4, but the trial Court erred in rejecting the same.

3. The trial Court has held that the proposed defendant is not necessary party for adjudication of the suit and rejected the impleading application. I see no illegality or infirmity in the impugned Order.

4. In the result, Petition fails and the same is hereby rejected.

Sd/- JUDGE bnv*