In the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 21 ST DAY OF MARCH, 2013 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO.24836/2011 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN 1.SRI K L NARAHARI KESHAVA MURTHY @ K L N K MURTHY S/O LATE LAKSHMINARASIMHAIAH AGED 73 YEARS, R/OF NO.4, 1ST CROSS, SRIRAMPURAM, BANGALORE 21 2.SRI K L NARAYANA MURTHY S/O LATE LAKSHMINARASIMHAIAH 71 YEARS, R/OF NO.4, 1ST CROSS, SRIRAMPURAM, BANGALORE 21. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI K.N. NITISH FOR SRI K V NARASIMHAN, ADV.) AND: 1.C N THIPPAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRS: 1A) SMT RAJAMMA W/O LATE C N THIPPAIAH AGED 70 YEARS, CHIKKAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK 2 1B) SMT LALITHA N AGED 60 YEARS W/O LATE A NARASIMHAMURTHY 2ND CROSS,2ND STAGE, 1ST MAIN, SAPTHAGIRI EXTENSION, UPPARAHALLI, OPP VANI PUBLIC SCHOOL , TUMKUR 2 1C) SMT GAYATHRI AGED 58 YEARS W/O C RAMAKRISHNA MAHADEVAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK 1D) SMT KUSUMA AGED 56 YEARS W/O N S SURESH NO.12, BETWEEN 17TH & 18TH CROSS, RANGANATHPURA, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE 3 1E) SMT NIRMALA AGED 56 YEARS W/O K N VIJAYA VARDHAN NO.100, SHARADA, 10TH CROSS, IV MAIN, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE 3 1F) SMT SHARADA B S AGED 43 YEARS W/O SHASHIDAR CNS 134, KRS AGRAHARA, BM ROAD, KUNIGAL TUMKUR DISTRICT 1G) SMT SHEELA AGED 53 YEARS W/O L N PRAKASH SIMHA NO.120, SNEHA SANGAMA 3 12TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR,BANGALORE 86 1H) SMT PREMALILA C T W/O R L GURUSWAMY NO.520, SHIVANILAYA, NEAR BAPUJI DEPT STORE 1ST MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, HMT LAYOUT, BANGALORE 73 2. K S MRUTHYUNJAYA MAJOR, R/O BASENAHALLY NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT 3. C K ASHOK KUMAR S/O C N THIPPAIAH MAJOR, R/O CHIKKAMARANAHALLY NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT 4. SRI KRISHNAPPA AGED 55 YEARS S/O LATE APPAIAH R/O BINNAMANGALA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK. ... RESPONDENTS ***** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER AT ANNEX.G, DATED 15.06.2011 PASSED BY LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), NELAMANGLA, ON I.ANO.10 IN O.S.NO.75/2001. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEX. G DATED 15.06.2011 PASSED BY 4 LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), NELAMANGLA, ON I.A.NO.10 IN O.S.NO.75/2001. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R The Petitioners are the plaintiffs and respondents 1 to 3 are the defendants in OS No.75/2001, pending on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Nelamangala, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, filed to pass a judgment and decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and persons claiming under them from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, which is a vacant site, as described in the schedule to the plaint. Defendants have filed a separate written statement resisting the plaintiffs’ claim to suit property. 4 th respondent filed IA No.10 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC to permit him to come on record of the suit as defendant No.4. It was stated in the accompanying affidavit to IA No.10 that the applicant has purchased a 5 portion of the suit property under a sale deed dated 12.4.2000 executed by defendant No.1, as Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff and that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the purchased portion of the suit property. The plaintiffs filed statement of objections to IA No.10, but did not specifically deny the material assertions made in para No.3 of the affidavit accompanying to IA No.10. The learned trial judge, by an order dated 15.6.2011, allowed IA No.10 subject to payment of cost. Assailing the said order, the plaintiffs have filed this writ petition. 2. Sri K.N. Nitish, learned advocate contended that the suit being one for passing a judgment and decree of permanent injunction, the plaintiffs being the dominus litus, IA No.10 being not maintainable, ought to have been dismissed. Instead, the order passed being one on account of material irregularity, warrants interference. 3. Perused the writ record. 6 4. Suit has been instituted to pass a judgment and decree of permanent injunction. In the written statement filed, there is a reference to the sale of suit property as GPA holder of the plaintiffs. Respondent No.4/applicant in IA No.10 has stated that he purchased a portion of the suit property under sale deed dated 12.4.2001 executed by defendant No.1 as the Power of Attorney of plaintiffs and that he is in possession and enjoyment of the same as the absolute owner. In the circumstances, the 4 th respondent/applicant should also be treated as a person who has attempted to interfere with the alleged lawful possession and enjoyment of suit property. In order to minimize the litigation by avoiding multiplicity of suits, the trial court is justified in allowing IA No.10. 5. In the said view of the matter, I do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, writ petition fails and shall stand dismissed. 7 However, the suit having been instituted in the year 2001, the trial court is directed to decide the suit expeditiously and within a period of six months from the next nearing date of the suit. Sd/- JUDGE PL .

Load more