ORDER

The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 23.10.2020 passed in O.S No.1913/2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bengaluru Rural District, Hosakote.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ petition are as under:

The petitioner filed the suit for declaration and injunction against the respondents. In the said suit the petitioner filed the application seeking for an order of temporary injunction seeking exparte ad-interim injunction against the respondents. The trial Court declined to grant an exparte ad-interim injunction. The petitioner aggrieved by the same, has filed this writ petition and also challenging the order directing the petitioner to remove the 3rd respondent from the cause list and furnish an amended plaint.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for grant of ad-interim temporary injunction but the trial Court has declined to grant an ad-interim order. He submits that though the petitioner has made 3rd defendant as a party, the trial Court without putting on the notice of the petitioner has passed an order directing the petitioner to remove 3rd respondent from the cause list and furnish an amended plaint. He submits that 3rd respondent is a necessary party, without the presence of 3rd party suit cannot be decided. Hence, he submits that trial Court has committed an error in directing the petitioner to remove 3rd respondent from the cause list. Hence, on these grounds he prays to allow the writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has not made out a prima facie case for grant of ad-interim order of injunction. The trial Court was justified in declining to grant the exparte interim order. He also submits that no relief is claimed against the 3rd respondent. Hence, the trial Court was justified in directing the petitioner to delete the 3rd respondent from the cause list. Hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

6. Heard and perused the records and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

7. The petitioner filed the suit for declaration and injunction against the respondents and also filed an application seeking for an order of temporary injunction against respondent Nos.1 and 2.

8. The petitioner prayed to issue exparte order of temporary injunction, but the trial Court declined to grant exparte temporary injunction. This Court vide order dated 23.11.2020, granted the interim order as prayed for in the writ petition and the same was extended from time to time. The petition filed by the petitioner is pending in consideration before the trial Court. If the direction is issued to the trial Court to dispose of the said application, no injustice would cause to both the parties.

9. The trial Court while passing the impugned order has recorded a finding which reads as under:

“It is the view of the Court, 3rd defendant is a unnecessary party in view of just because it caused the khata as per Section 128 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, based on the J slips issued by sub registrar, in view of defendants 1 and 2 purchased the property in land bearing sy.no.92 through registered sale deeds dated 19.06.2020 and 01.07.2020. The 3rd defendant acted as per provision, it has nothing to do with the plaintiff’s property. Accordingly, by invoking Order-I Rule-10(2) of CPC, 3rd defendant is stricken from the suit as its presence is not required to enable the Court effectually and completely, to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Therefore, I.A No.I becomes lumber, consequently, it is rejected.”

10. The trial Court before recording the aforesaid finding has not provided any opportunity to the petitioner to say whether 3rd defendant is a necessary party to the suit without providing an opportunity to the petitioner has proceeded