AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi Malimath
The respondent filed a suit for specific performance. During the pendency of the suit, LA. No. VII was filed by the plaintiff under order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to implead the proposed defendant as mentioned therein. By the impugned order, the same was allowed. Hence, the present petition by the proposed defendant No. 19. Smt. Nalina Maye Gowda, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has not been heard while allowing the application and hence the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside.
On considering the impugned order, it could be seen that the application has not been considered on merits. The application was allowed by a single line order, which is wholly impermissible. Every application that has been filed would necessarily require to be considered by assigning proper reasons. The Trial Court has failed to do so. Hence, the said order is unsustainable.
For the aforesaid reasons, the order dated. 1.8.2011 passed on I.A. No. VII by the Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 9363/2004, is set aside. The Trial Court is directed to re-hear the said application on merits and pass an appropriate reasoned order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Writ petition is accordingly disposed off.