Sri N.G. Muniyappa vs Sri Krishnappa and Others

B.S. Patil, J.—This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 26.09.2013 passed in OS No. 218/2006 by the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hoskote, vide Annexure-A. By the said order, the Trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the present petitioner under Order-I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking his impleadment as additional defendant. The main contention of the petitioner, is that he has filed a suit in OS No. 430/2005 seeking declaration of title and for permanent injunction in respect of the very same property and it is pending on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. He has urged that in the present suit also, respondents 6 and 7 herein, who are the plaintiffs are seeking declaration of their title over the very same property and if he is not permitted to come on record there will be legally inconsistent judgment and it may adversely affect the interest of the petitioner. The Trial Court has rejected the application holding that, the presence of the petitioner is not necessary for the effective disposal of the dispute raised in the suit.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein was not aware of the pendency of the suit in OS No. 218/2006. Therefore, he seeks to allow the application in the interest of justice permitting the petitioner to come on record as additional defendant, which will sub-serve the interest of the petitioner.

The contesting respondent strongly opposes the contention raised by the petitioner.

I have gone through the arguments adduced by the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the pleadings and other materials available on record including the order-sheet maintained by the Presiding officer in OS No. 218/2006 which is made available for perusal by the counsel appearing for the respondents who has filed an application for vacating the interim order.

It can be seen from the order-sheet dated 22.10.2013, that the Trial Court has heard the argument of the counsel for the defendants and posted the matter for reply/judgment on 28.10.2013 and it is only on 29.10.2013 the petitioner filed the present application seeking his impleadment. The suit having been already posted for reply and judgment on 28.10.2013 by the Trial Court and as the hearing of the suit has already been completed, what virtually remained in the case is passing of the judgment and at this belated stage petitioner has made the present application seeking to be impleaded as additional defendant. Therefore, the Trial Court was right and justified in dismissing the application. The suit is of the year 2006 and the petitioner has not taken any steps for the last more than seven years to come on record, if he was really interested in resisting the suit. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merit of his claim and reserving his right to seek redressal of his grievance in the manner known to law this writ petition is dismissed declining to interfere with the impugned order.