Writ Petition No. 7759 of 2020 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:21878 WP No. 7759 of 2020 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7759 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. INDIRA GANDHI PRIMARY EDUCATION SOCIETY NO.39/2, 2ND FLOOR A.S.V.N.V. BHAVAN OPPOSITE S.B.I., K.G. ROAD GANDHI NAGAR BENGALURU-560 009. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. (BY SRI. PAUL CHANDRAN BAYNES, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A.K.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND:
Legal Reasoning
Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 1. AYODHYANAGARADA SHIVACHARA VYASA NAGARATHA VIDYAVARDAKA SANGHA HAVING ITS OFFICE AT ASVNV BHAVAN, 6TH FLOOR NO.39/2, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BANGALORE-560 009. REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY.
Legal Reasoning
2. MR. SATEESH S. KUDTARKAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN 50 YEARS, ADVOCATE 2ND FLOOR, ASVNV BHAVAN NO.39/2, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BANGALORE-560 009. 3. MR. VAGEESH V. HIREMATH FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:21878 WP No. 7759 of 2020 HC-KAR ADVOCATE, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 2ND FLOOR, ASVNV BHAVAN NO.39/2, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BANGALORE-560 009. 4. MR. K. P. CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS ADVOCATE 2ND FLOOR, ASVNV BHAVAN NO.39/2, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BANGALORE-560 009. 5. MR. S. M. SHIVASHANKAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS ADVOCATE 2ND FLOOR, ASVNV BHAVAN NO.39/2, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BANGALORE-560 009. 6. MR. A. RAJENDRA S/O MUNISWAMY ARUMUGAM AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS M/S. B.M. CARS, NO.68 4TH MAIN, HIG PHASE-I NOL AMBUR, MOGAPUR WEST CHENNAI-600 037. 7. MR. PREMUKUMAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS ADVOCATE NO. 39/2, 2ND FLOOR ASVNV BHAVAN KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BANGALORE-560 009. (BY SRI. ABHISHEK N.V., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI. L.MALLIKARJUNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R7) …RESPONDENTS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21878 WP No. 7759 of 2020 HC-KAR THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.5546/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-16) AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.10.2019, IN O.S.NO.5546/2017, PASSED BY THE HON'BLE JUDGE, XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION BENGALURU (CCH-16) AS PER ANNEXURE-K AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking the following relief: "a) Call for the entire records in O.S.No.5546/2017, on the file of the Hon'ble XVII Additional City Civil and Session Judge, Bengaluru (CCH.16). b) Issue a writ in the Nature of Mandamus / Certiorari, setting aside the order dated 19- 10-2019, in O.S.No.5546/2017, passed by the Hon'ble XVII Additional City Civil and Session Judge, Bengaluru (CCH.16) as per Annexure- K. c) Issue any other appropriate Order/Orders and to Grant such other relief as this Hon'ble court deems fit to grant in the circumstances and facts of the case in the interest of justice and equity." - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:21878 WP No. 7759 of 2020 HC-KAR 2. Sri. Paul Chandran Baynes, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is defendant No.1 in the suit filed by respondent No.1. In the said suit, it filed an application to strike out defendant Nos.2 to 5 and 7 from the proceedings as there is no jural relationship between respondent No.1, who is the plaintiff and the said defendants. It is submitted that defendant Nos.2 to 5 and 7 are the sub-tenants of the petitioner, even in their absence, the suit can be proceeded with and if any decree is passed in view of specific admission of the petitioner, the said decree binds on them. Hence, they are neither necessary nor proper parties and the application is filed to strike them out from the proceedings required to be allowed. It is further submitted that the petitioner-respondent No.1 in the plaint at paragraph No.2 has stated that it is a lessee under State Government however in the amended plaint, he claims himself as the owner and unless that issue is decided, the suit cannot be proceeded with. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:21878 WP No. 7759 of 2020 HC-KAR 3. Per contra, Sri. Abhishek N.V., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that defendant Nos.2 to 5 and 7 have no objection to contest the proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 as they have filed separate written statements taking their stand. In the written statement filed by respondent Nos.2 to 5 and 7 they have clearly admitted that they are the sub-tenants under the petitioner and which is also evident from the written statement filed by the petitioner. Hence, they are necessary and proper parties for adjudication of the suit as the suit is for ejectment and possession. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments on both sides and perused the materials available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced. 5. Respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.5546/2017 seeking judgment and decree against defendant Nos.1 to 5 to quit, vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property and further prays for arrears and damage etc. In the said suit, petitioner filed a written statement taking - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:21878 WP No. 7759 of 2020 HC-KAR its stand. The written statement filed by the petitioner indicate that it has sub-let the premises to defendant Nos.2 to 5 and 7 who are parties in the proceedings. The records indicate that defendant Nos.2 to 5 and 7 also filed their written statement and in one of the written statements at paragraph 8 it emanates that the premises was sub-let in their favour by the petitioner. When things stood thus, the trial Court taking note of the fact that the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 of CPC to delete/strike the case against defendant Nos.2 to 5 and 7 is misconceived as they themselves are contesting the proceedings and have taken a stand in the pending suit. In my consideration, the trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. 6. It is not in dispute that the decree passed in favour of defendant No.1 binds the sub-tenants also. However, when the sub-tenants have no objection to continue the proceedings, definitely, respondent No.1 who is the petitioner cannot have any objection for defendant Nos.2 to 5 and 7 being the parties to the proceedings. I do not find any error in the impugned - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:21878 WP No. 7759 of 2020 HC-KAR order calling for interference in the present petition. Hence, the same is rejected. Insofar as the contention with regard to the stand of respondent No.1 in the plaint averments at paragraph No.2 is concerned, the same cannot be gone into the present petition as the same is not the subject matter in this petition. For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is hereby rejected. SD/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28