Sri. G.M. Salvi (Wrongly described as Selvaraj) vs Smt. Umme Salma

Manjula Chellur, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

Perused the order of dismissal dt. 19.9.2009 on I.A.6 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.,) & JMFC, Devanahalli seeking permission to file written statement.

It is not in dispute that against the present Petitioner one Smt. Umme Salma, a suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed. It is not in dispute that immediately after service of summons on the present Petitioner in the name of Mr. Selvaraj, he received the summons and appeared before the Court on 17.6.2006. It is also not in dispute that subsequent to his appearance and signing the order sheet he did not appear, except his son one Prashanth G. Sahd filing written statement along with vakalath of him through the counsel. As Prasbanth G. Salavi was not a party to the proceedings his written statement and Vakalath were refused, wherein certain observations said to have been made in the orders that the suit was against one Selvaraj. At that stage, this Petitioner filed written statement to inform the Court that he is not the Defendant, against whom the suit of the Plaintiff for permanent injunction came to be filed. The written statement came to be rejected, as the same was not filed within the prescribed time. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

Apparently in the plaint, the Defendant is not described as Selvaraj @ G.M. Salvi. He is only described as Selvaraj. During the coarse of submission, the Petitioner counsel brought to the notice of this Court the feet of suit schedule property in O.S. 111/2005 actually being in the name of son of Mr. Salvi by name Prashnath G. Salvi whose written statement and Vakalath were rejected by the Court on earlier occasion on the ground that he was not a party to the proceedings.

On perusal of the entire proceedings in the above suit, it is seen, at the instance of the present Petitioner and his son Prashanth G. Salvi, they never invoked right provision at the proper time, Prashanth G. Salvi filed a written statement and Vakalath without impleading himself as a party to the proceedings. Therefore, the trial Court was justified in rejecting the written statement and Vakalath of Prashanth G. Salvi.

So far as the present Petitioner, during the course of arguments on certain I. As there was a submission that Selvaraj is also called as Salvi and this prompted the present Petitioner to file written statement after a lapse of 2� years. Even now he is not admitting that his name is Selvaraj @ Salvi. According to him, he is only Salvi S/o Mahadev Salvi. Even if the present Petitioner is allowed to come on record, the controversy between the parties would not be settled once for all and it would only lead to multiplicity of proceedings as the disputed property apparently stands in the name of Prashanth G. Salvi and the best course open to the parties would be Prashanth G. Salvi coming on record as a necessary party as he is in possession of the suit schedule property as owner of the property according to the Petitioner. Even if there is interference or disturbance at the hands of Prashanth G. Salvi or his men claiming under Prashanth G. Salvi, such interference could also be injuncted against them. Therefore, permitting the Petitioner to file his written statement after a lapse of 2� years would not serve the purpose and it would not decide any controversy.

With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed.