(BY SRI MAHABALESHWARA RAO K .N, ADV.) v. (BY SMT. EDA NIREEKSHANA KESHAIAH, ADV., FOR R-1 TO R-3)
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. 1 r. 10
Judgment
2. SMT. SHARMILA R W/O DR GIRISH K NASHI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
3. SRI AMARESH G NASHI S/O DR GIRISH K NASHI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
4. SRI ADESH G NASHI Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka S/O DR GIRISH K NASHI AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO.76, N.N. FARM ROAD SANJAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 094. (BY SRI MAHABALESHWARA RAO K .N, ADV.) …PETITIONERS AND:
BORANNA T.B.R DEAD BY LRS SMT. PREMA BORANNA W/O LATE T.B.R. BORANNA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.3 SPENCER ROAD PULAKESHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 003. - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:28116 WP No. 18087 of 2024
BORANNA T.B.R DEAD BY LRS SMT. SHALINI BORANNA D/O LATE T.B.R. BORANNA ADULT MAJOR RESIDING AT NO.BN ROAD NEAR STATE BANK VTC GUNDLUPET CHAMARAJNAGAR KARNATAKA - 571 111.
SRI T.B. RAJU S/O LATE T.B.R. BORANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.3 SPENCER ROAD PULAKESHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 003.
AUTHORISED OFFICER SIR M. VISVESWARAIAH CO-OP BANK LTD, NO.109 CORPORATE OFFICE SHANKARAPURAM BENGALURU - 560 004. (BY SMT. EDA NIREEKSHANA KESHAIAH, ADV., FOR R-1 TO R-3) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT. 26/06/2024 - ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE LD. LXXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-85), COMMERCIAL COURT, BENGALURU IN COMM. OS NO. 1661/2019. PASSED ON IA NO. 16 ANNX-F. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:28116 WP No. 18087 of 2024 ORDER
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 26.06.2024 passed on I.A.No.16 filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in Com.O.S.No.1661/2019 on the file of the LXXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bengaluru, defendant Nos.1 to 4 therein have preferred this writ petition.
2. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the plaintiffs Commercial O.S.No.1661/2019. They have filed a suit for recovery of money to an extent of Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs only) along with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. against the petitioners herein. The said suit is filed on the ground that the petitioners herein are lessee of the suit schedule property and that respondent Nos.1 to 3 / plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule property and that petitioners have committed default in payment of the rental dues. The petitioners herein filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC seeking to implead Sir M.Visveshwaraiah Co-operative Bank - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:28116 WP No. 18087 of 2024 defendant No.5 in the commercial original suit. The said application is made on the ground that the said suit schedule property is mortgaged to the proposed defendant and for that reason, the proposed defendant is just and necessary party to the proceedings. The trial Court has rejected the said application. The said order is challenged herein.
Operative part
3. The lis between the petitioners and respondent Nos.1 to 3 is that whether the petitioners being lessee of the suit schedule property owe a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs only) along with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. to the respondent Nos.1 to 3. To resolve the dispute there is no requirement for impleading respondent No.4 herein who is a Bank to whom the suit schedule property is said to have been mortgaged. I do not see any error in the order passed by the trial Court and accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:28116 WP No. 18087 of 2024
4. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE VMB
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. 1 r. 10.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.