AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H. Billappa, J.—In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question, the order dated 22.10.2013, passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No. 7034/2012 on I.A. No. 3 vide Annexure-E.
By the impugned order at Annexure-E, the Trial Court has rejected I.A. No. 3 filed by the petitioner to implead him as party to the proceedings.
Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
Briefly stated the facts are:
The first respondent has filed suit in O.S. No. 7034/12 for recovery of possession from the respondents 2 to 4. At the stage of arguments, the petitioner has filed I.A. No. 3 to implead him as party to the proceedings. The Trial Court by its order dated 22.10.2013 has rejected the application. Therefore, this writ petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the Trial Court has erred while rejecting the application. Further he submitted that it is averred in the plaint that the petitioner has let out the premises unauthorisedly. The presence of the petitioner is required for effective adjudication of the matter. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.
As against this, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the impugned order does not call for interference. He also submitted that the petitioner is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the proceedings. Further he submitted that there is a decree in favour of the 1st respondent in O.S. No. 1706/2004 and the suit schedule property has been gifted in her favour. The petitioner has nothing to do with the suit and therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference.
I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
The point that arises for my consideration is:
Whether the impugned order calls for interference?
It is relevant to note, the suit in O.S. No. 7034/2012 has been filed by the first respondent for recovery of possession and mesne profits from the respondents 2 to 4. It is contended by the first respondent that her step sons have unauthorisedly let out the suit schedule property to the respondents 2 to 4. The petitioner contends that the respondents 2 to 4 are tenants under him. No doubt, there is a decree in favour of the first respondent in O.S. No. 1706/2004. It is challenged in R.F.A. No. 1106/2012. The rights of the parties are yet to be adjudicated finally. In the circumstances, the presence of the petitioner is required for effective adjudication of the matter. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No. 7034/12 on I.A. No. 3 is hereby set aside. I.A. No. 3 is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to come on record as one of the defendants.