Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 45964
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY WRIT PETITION NO. 10238 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
M/S Walwhan Renewable Energy Limited (Formerly Known As Welspun Renewable Energy Pvt.Ltd)
Represented by its Authorized Dignitary, Mrs.Shiva Prasad Karmakar, S/o. Priya Lal Karmakar, Aged About 57 Years, Station Head, Resident Of Bedareddy Halli Village, Challakere Taluk-577522, Chitradurga District.
…Petitioner (By Sri. B.M. Siddappa, Advocate)
Digitally signed by BANGALORE MADHAVACHAR VEENA And:
Location: High Court of Karnataka
1. Smt. Thimmamma W/O Late.Narayana Reddcy, Aged About 72 Years, Bedareddy Hally Village, Talaku Hobli, Challakere-577522, Chitradurga District.
2. Smt.Jayamma W/O Late G.Shriram Reddy, Aged About 72 Years, 3. G.S.Prakash S/O Late G.Shriram Reddy, Aged About 52 Years, 4. G.S.Shailaja D/O Late G.Shriram Reddy, Aged About 57 Years, 5. G.S.Shobha D/O Late G.Shriram Reddy, Aged About 49 Years, Defendant No.2 to 5 are R/O No.172, 11th Main, 3rd Cross, Saraswathipuram, Mysore-570009. 6. G.Veeranna S/O Late G.Thimmappa, Aged About 82 Years, City Club Road, Chitradurga-577501.
7. Talakere Veeranna S/O Late Doddeerappa, Aged About 72 Years, Agriculturist.
8. Talakere Thimmaiah S/O Late Doddeerappa, Aged About 67 Years, Agriculturist, Defendant No.7 & 8 R/O Banjigere Village, Talak Hobli, Challakere Taluk-577522, Chitradurga District.
9. Thimmareddy S/O Late Dasanna, Aged About 67 Years, 10. D.Govinda Reddy S/O Late Dasanna, Aged About 65 Years, 11. G.Manjunatha S/O Late Dasanna, Aged About 62 Years, 12. B.Chidananda Reddy S/O Late Dasanna, Aged About 57 Years, 13. Neelakanta Reddy S/O Late Dasanna, Aged About 57 Years, 14. Rudramma W/O Late Kodanda Reddy, Aged About 62 Years, 15. Manjula W/O Late Thimma Reddy, Aged About 57 Years, 16. Krishna Reddy S/O Govindappa, Aged About 55 Years, 17. Rukmangada Reddy S/O Govindappa, Aged About 52 Years, Respondents 9 to 17 are Agriculturist, R/O Bedareddy Hally, Talaku Hobli, Challakere Taluk-577522, Chitradurga District.
18. Smt.Lakshmidevi W/O K.B.Narasimhareddy, Aged About 59 Years, Muradi Village, Rayadurga Taluk-515865, Ananthapur District.
19. Smt.Thimmamma W/O K.B.Narasimhareddy, Aged About 57 Years, Gollalingavanahally, Sonduru Taluk-583119, Chitradurga District.
…Respondents (By Sri. D.R. Rajashekharappa, Advocate for R-1;
R-2 to R-19 - notice dispensed with v/o dt.05-07-2021)
****
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to (a) issue writ of certiorari, or any other writ or order or direction, in the nature of writ quashing order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Challakere in FDP No.9/2015 on I.A.No.12 dated 17-01-2020 produced as Annexure D to the writ petition; (b) cost and such other reliefs deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in 'B'
Group, through Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R
The present petitioner - Company was an applicant in I.A.No.12, filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the CPC") in F.D.P.No.9/2015, in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Challakere (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Trial Court"). Under the impugned order dated 17-01-2020, the said application came to be rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant in the Trial Court has filed this writ petition.
2. Heard the argument from both side. Perused the entire material placed before the Court.
3. The present respondent No.1 has initiated an F.D.P.No.9/2015 in O.S.No.2/2013 that was filed by her for partition and separate possession against the respondents therein. Few months prior to the respondent No.1 filing F.D.P.No.9/2015, the respondents No.7 and 8 herein filed an appeal in R.F.A.No.825/2015, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.2/2013. Subsequent to the respondent No.1 filing F.D.P.No.9/2015, i.e. during the pendency of the proceedings in F.D.P.No.9/2015, a registered agreement of sale is said to have been executed by the respondents No.7 and 8 herein in favour of the present petitioner - Company, with respect to the suit schedule property at item No.2.
4. It is further the contention of the petitioner -
Company that, on the date 30-06-2016, respondents No.7 and 8 executed a Sale Deed also in respect of the suit schedule property at item No.2 in favour of the present petitioner - Company.
5. However, the vendors of the property i.e.
respondents No.7 and 8 herein contended that the said Sale Deed came to be cancelled under a registered Cancellation Deed dated 08-08-2016. Similarly, the General Power of Attorney (GPA) said to have been executed in favour of the petitioner - Company by them also came to be cancelled.
6. In the above background, in the FDP, the alleged purchaser (petitioner herein) of the property from respondents 7 and 8 filed an application under Order I Rule 10 (2) of the CPC, seeking its impleadment as respondent No.19 in the F.D.P. No.9/2015. The same was opposed by the petitioner therein. After hearing both side, the Trial Court rejected the said application.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner (applicant in I.A.No.12 in the Trial Court) in his brief argument submitted that, the present petitioner is the purchaser of one of the items of the suit schedule properties from respondents No.6 and 7 therein (respondents No.7 and 8 herein), who were the judgment debtors. Therefore, in the interest of equity and to submit to the Trial Court that the share that is going to be allotted to the respondents No. 6 and 7 therein be that particular item which was sold to it, the applicant - Company has filed an application seeking its impleadment under Order I Rule 10 (2) of the CPC, as such, the same deserves to be allowed.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 in his argument submitted that, the alleged Sale Deed in favour of the present petitioner - Company has stood cancelled under a registered Cancellation Deed dated 08-08-2016. Further, even according to the petitioner/applicant, the alleged transaction has taken place during the pendency of O.S.No.2/2013, as such, by virtue of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, it is a transaction pendente lite, as such, would be bound by the outcome of the suit. Therefore, the applicant - Company, which claims itself to be the purchaser of the property is not a necessary party, as such, its application was rightly rejected by the Trial Court.
9. A perusal of the interlocutory application -
I.A.No.12 filed by the present petitioner as an applicant in the Trial Court and the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner - Company would go to show that, the applicant claims its impleadment as respondent No.19 in the FDP proceedings, only on the contention that the respondents No.7 and 8 here
