Trial court committed a gravely erroneous procedure by allowing applications from parties not properly notified while under interim orders, undermining party rights.

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

"a) Call for records.

b) [Deleted as per order dated

14/11/2024]

c) Allow I.A.No.9 (Impleading Application dated 18/09/2015) filed by the Petitioner and grant an opportunity to the Petitioner to come on record as Respondent in FDP No.28/2006 before the Senior Civil Judge, Anekal, Bangalore.

ca) Quash and set aside the entire proceedings in FDP No.28/2006, subsequent to the order dated 27/09/2016, subject to modification of the final decree as per Order dated

12/08/2017 passed in RA 5081/2017, d) Grant such other consequential and further relief/s as may be deemed fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice and equity."

2. Sri.Sagar G. Nahar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the purchaser of the 5 (five) properties during the pendency of the suit. The pendency of the suit was not within his knowledge while making the purchase. It is submitted that the petitioner came to know that the plaintiffs, who are respondent Nos.1 to 4 initiated final decree proceedings in FDP.No.28/2006. Hence, the petitioner filed an application in IA.No.9 seeking for impleadment. The said application is still pending. It is further submitted that the trial Court accepted the Court Commissioner's report without considering the petitioner's application filed for impleadment in the said FDP and the said order came to be challenged in this writ petition. It is also submitted that this Court vide order dated 28.02.2017 stayed all further proceedings in FDP No.28/2006 pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Anekal. Pending proceedings in the FDP, respondent Nos.1 to 4 got the final decree drawn and got the same registered before the jurisdictional Sub-registrar on 21.11.2016. The same was also behind the back of the petitioner. It is contented that as soon as the registration of the final decree was came to the knowledge of the petitioner, petitioner filed RA.No.5081/2017 challenging the final decree in FDP.No.28/2006 and in the said appeal, the petitioner has compromised the dispute with respondent Nos.1 to 4. When things stood thus, children of respondent No.5 filed an application in IA.No.12 seeking for their share in the FDP.No.28/2006 alleging that they are entitled to the share and the trial Court allotted a share of 3/10 in respect of the suit schedule properties. The said order of the trial Court dated 24.08.2018 was passed despite there being an interim order of this Court in the present petition.

The said order was passed without filing an application to bring LRs of respondent No.5 on record and the said order was passed without even issuing notice to the petitioner whose application for impleadment was pending and even without issuing notice to respondent Nos.1 to 4 who are the decree holders. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the order dated 24.08.2018.

3. Sri.Shankar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that respondent Nos.1 to 4 are plaintiffs in O.S.No.625/1995 and the said suit was decreed in their favour and later in the RA.No.5081/2017 filed by the petitioner herein, they have compromised the dispute between the petitioner with respect to the five items of the suit schedule properties which he has purchased from them. It is submitted that he has no objection to allow the petition.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel representing respondent Nos.1 to 4. There is no representation for other respondents, though they are served.

5. The petitioner claiming to be the purchaser of 5 items of the suit schedule property, filed this petition seeking to qua