AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—Respondents 1 to 10 have filed O.S. No. 16792/2005 in the City Civil Court at Bangalore, against the Petitioners and the 11th Respondent, The suit has been filed in representative capacity for relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. The Petitioners are the 1st and 2nd Defendants in the suit and have filed written statement on 09.09.2005. Issues were framed and the suit was posted for trial. Respondents 12 to 17 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 8(3) CPC to permit them to come on record as co-Plaintiffs. The Petitioners filed statement of objections on 17.06.2010. The trial court has allowed the said application. Feeling aggrieved, the Defendants 1 & 2 have filed this writ petition.
Sri P.M. Narayanaswamy, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that, the property described in the schedule belongs to the Petitioners and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same in exercise of absolute ownership rights. According to the learned Counsel, the suit itself being not maintainable, the trial court has erred in allowing the application filed belatedly by the Respondents 12 to 17. He contends that the impugned order is irrational and illegal.
Sri S. Shadaksharaiah, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents 12, 13, 15 and 17, on the other hand contended that, the notice was published in Sanjevani newspaper, which is only an evening daily and has no circulation in the area and as such, the Respondents 12 to 17 had no knowledge of the institution of the suit. learned Counsel submits that, the applicants upon learning of the filing of suit and that there is collusive acts between the Plaintiffs and the Petitioners herein, in public interest, filed the application seeking impleading as co-Plaintiffs in the suit. Learned Counsel submits that, the application being tenable, the trial court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction, has passed the order allowing the application, with which no interference is called for.
The Plaintiffs have stated in the trial court that, they have no objection for impleading of the applicants as co-Plaintiffs. The application was opposed only by the Petitioners herein. The suit has been instituted in a representative capacity. The applicants claim to be the residents of the area and intend to join the Plaintiffs in prosecution of the suit. The court had directed publication of notice as required under Order 1 Rule 8(2) CPC and the said notice has been published on 04.08.2005 in Sanjevani newspaper. The said paper is only an evening daily. The Petitioners have not produced any material to show that, the applicants had knowledge of the pendency of the suit from 04.08.2005 till the application was filed and deliberately filed the application at belated stage. The claim of the applicants that, they had no knowledge of the said publication and the suit, cannot be brushed aside. The trial court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction has allowed the application.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is justified. Hence, no interference is called for.
The Petitioners have filed the written statement on 09.09.2005. The delay in disposal of the suit may cause hardship to the Petitioners. In the circumstances, while rejecting the writ petition, the trial court is directed to try the suit and decide the same, within a period of six months from the date a copy of this order is placed on its record by the Petitioners.
In order to facilitate the trial court to dispose off the suit within the said period, the Plaintiffs (including Respondents 12 to 17 herein) shall adduce and complete the Plaintiffs side of evidence within six weeks from today. The Defendants shall adduce and complete their side of evidence, within two months from the date the Plaintiffs evidence is complete. The trial court to decide the suit as early as practicable and at any event, within the time stipulated supra.
Needless to observe that the contentions of both parties with regard to the merit or otherwise of the suit is kept open for consideration by the trial court.