Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. BHAKTHAVATSALA
WRIT PETITION NO.10527/2012 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN :
VASANTHAMMA
WIFE OF MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT HENNUR VILLAGE
THIPPENAHALLI POST
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK
CHICKABALAPUR DISTRICT
RATHNAMMA
WIFE OF RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT NO.557, MARAMMA TEMPLE STREET
KADUGONDANAHALLI
BANGALORE-560 045
SRINIVAS
SON OF LATE CHIKKANAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT NO.557, MARAMMA TEMPLE STREET
KADUGONDANAHALLI
BANGALORE-560 045 …PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. J.N. NAVEEN, ADV., FOR M/S A. NAGARAJAPPA & ASSTS., ADVS.,)
AND :
THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
SANKEY ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
ENFORCEMENT CELL
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
SANKEY ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020
JANAB C.A. MALLICK
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
NO.4, PERIYAMMA MESTRI STREET
PERIAPET, CHENNAI
K.A. KARREM
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
NO.148 (138), VEREVY HIGH
SCHOOL, CHENNAI
BY THEIR G.P.A. HOLDER
(A) A.S. ANWAR SHARIFF SON OF LATE ABDUL SATTAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESPONDENT SALMAN SHARIFF SON OF A.S. ANWAR SHARIFF AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.80 (2) BENSON CROSS ROAD BENSON TOWN BANGALORE-560 046 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADV., FOR C/R3-R4; SRI. K.M. PRAKASH, ADV., FOR BDA (VK FILED);
3 SRI. B.V. SHANKAR NARAYAN RAO, ADV., FOR BDA COPY SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 6.1.2012 IN O.S.NO.9945/98 ON THE FILE OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BANGALORE ALLOWING THE APPLICATION I.A.NO.8 FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) OF CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-E.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Petitioners who are plaintiffs in O.S.No.9945/1998 on the file of the Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore City, are before this Court praying for quashing the order dated 06.01.2012 passed on I.A.No.8 (impleading application) filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC by respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent Nos.3 and 4 who have been impleaded
4 by the trial Court as per the impugned order are not necessary parties for adjudication of the case.
Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 submits that one Chikkannaiah had filed Form No.7 claiming the tenancy right in respect of the land in question before the Land Tribunal and said application was allowed by the Land Tribunal without disclosing the fact that the land belonging to Hazi Mohammed Ismail Sait was attached by Income Tax Department and C.A. Malick and K.A. Kareem (respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein) were appointed as receivers in O.S.No.11/1970 before the Civil Court at Chennai to sell the land and deposit the same before the Income Tax for adjustment towards tax duties.
In view of the above, trial Court is justified in impleading the applicants as defendant Nos.3 and 4 in the suit. I see no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
In the result, writ petition fails and the same is hereby rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE
PMR