Sri Eshwara Reddy vs Smt N Vinodha

SRI ESHWARA REDDY S/O SRI S V MINISWAMAYYA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS R/AT SULLIKUNTE VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK-560087. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI K.G.SADASHIVAIAH, ADV.) AND: 1. SMT. N VINODHA W/O LATE N LOKESH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT LAKSHMISAGARA ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE-562 106. 2. SRI RUDRESH KUMAR S/O LATE N LOKESH AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS R/AT LAKSHMISAGARA ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE-562 106. 3. SMT. CHINNAKKAYAMMA W/O. S M NAGAPPA @ S M NAGAPPA REDDY 2 AGED MAJOR, R/AT SULAKUNTE VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-560 087. 4. SRI RAJAPPA S/O LATE S M NAGAPPA @ S M NAGAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT NO.61, 1ST A MAIN NANJAPPA LAYOUT, ADUGODI BANGALORE-560 030. 5. SRI VEMANNA S/O LATE S M NAGAPPA @ S M NAGAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 65 EYARS R/AT NO.26, DR. DVG ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE-560 004. 6. SMT RATHNA @ RATHNA NARAYAN D/O S M NAGAPPA @ S M NAGAPPA REDDY W/O NARAYAN AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS R/AT NO.249, 9TH MAIN, 17TH CROSS LAKKASANDRA EXTENSION BANGALORE-560 030. 7. SMT. GOWRAMMA @ PILLA GOWRAMMA W/O SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT MUTHANALLUR VILLAGE AND POST SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE-562 106. 8. SMT SATHYAMMA W/O RAJAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT ANDANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE-562 106. 3 9. SMT SHYLAMMA W/O LAKSHMANNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT SULAKUNTE VILLAGE DOMMASANDRA POST BANGALORE EAST TALUK- 562 148. 10. SMT MANJULA, W/O B NAGARAJA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT DOMMASANDRA CROSS DOMMASANDRA POST RUNNING A PROVISION STORES AT SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE-562 106. 11. SRI N SAHANESH S/O SRI N Y NARAYAN AGED MAJOR R/AT NO.249, 9TH MAIN, 17TH CROSS LAKKASANDRA EXTENSION BANGALORE-560 030. 12. SRI N Y NARAYAN S/O SRI DODDA YALLA REDDY AGED MAJOR R/AT NO.249, 9TH MAIN, 17TH CROSS LAKKASANDRA EXTENSION BANGALORE-560 030. 13. M/S S.K.F. PVT LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SINGASANDRA VILLAGE, HOSUR MAIN ROAD BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE-560 007. 14. M/S FURNITURE SHOP REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR/PARTNER NO.4020/A, HAL II STAGE INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE-560 038. 4 15. TUMKUR GRAIN MERCHANTS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER BRANCH OFFICE, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560 011. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI D.R. SUNDARESHA FOR SRI S.VEMA REDDY, ADV. FOR C/R1 & R2) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE ON IA NO.57 IN OS NO.94/1998 DATED 20.3.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THE WP BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID IA NO.57 FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR IMPLEADMENT. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs and respondents 3 to 15 are the defendants in O.S.No.94/1998 pending in the Court of Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. Suit has been instituted to pass a decree of partition and separate possession. Defendants having filed separate written statement and issues having been raised, trial of the suit has taken place. When the suit was at the stage of arguments of the defendants, the petitioner filed I.A.57 on 15.03.2013, seeking permission 5 to implead himself as defendant No.15 in the suit. It was contended that he has right and interest in respect of item No.8 of the plaint schedule property and hence, he is a necessary and proper party to the suit. Plaintiffs having filed statement of objections to the said application on 16.03.2013 and defendant No.4 also having filed separate objections statement, learned Trial Judge has dismissed I.A.57 on 20.03.2013. Assailing the said order, the applicant in I.A.57 has filed this writ petition. 2. Sri K.G. Sadashivaiah, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, in view of the stiff resistance put forth by Sri D.R. Sundaresha, learned advocate by placing reliance on a decision of Jammu & Kashmir High Court in Civil Revision petition No.97/2008 & CMA No. 109/2008, decided on 08.05.2012, sought permission to withdraw this writ petition with liberty being reserved to the petitioner / applicant to institute a separate suit in respect of his right and interest in item No.8 of the plaint schedule property. 6 3. I.A.57 having been filed at the fag end of proceedings, learned Trial Judge is justified in declining to grant permission for impleadment in the suit, since the allowing of the said application would have reversed the entire process of the suit which has been pending consideration from 1998. In the circumstances, writ petition stands dismissed as not pressed. However, it is open to the petitioner to seek relief, if any in accordance with law. If any suit is instituted in respect of item No.8 of the plaint schedule property in O.S.No.94/1998, the same be decided without being influenced by the observation made in the order dated 20.03.2013 passed on I.A.57. It is made clear that the defence of the plaintiffs / respondents 1 & 2 herein is kept intact. No costs. Sd/- JUDGE sac*