AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi Malimath, J.—The petitioners filed a suit for partition. During the pendency of the suit, I.A. No. 4 was filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC seeking to implead the subsequent purchaser as defendant No. 4 and yet another application i.e., I.A. No. 5 was filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of the plaint. By the impugned order, thermal Court rejected I.A. No. 4 whereas I.A. No. 5 for amendment was allowed. Hence, the present petitions questioning the order of rejecting the plea for impleadment. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Respondents 1 to 3 are served and unrepresented. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 is absent.
The trial Court was of the view that since the suit was filed on 31.10.2008 and the suit schedule property was sold to the proposed defendant No. 4 on 19.04.2000 i.e., much prior to the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, the proposed defendant is neither a proper party nor a necessary party to the suit.
On considering the same, I ''am of the view that the reasoning assigned by the trial Court is unsustainable in view of the fact that the application for amendment has been allowed. What has been allowed by virtue of the amendment is to add that the registered sale deed dated 19.04.2000 is not binding upon the plaintiffs to the extent of their shares. This is the very document from which the proposed defendant denied his rights. Therefore, in view of allowing the amendment, I ''am of the considered view that the application for impleadment requires to be allowed. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions are allowed. The order dated 01.06.2011 passed on I.A. No. 4 filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC in O.S. No. 771/2008 by the Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Devanahalli is set aside. I.A. No. 4 filed by the plaintiffs under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC is allowed.