RASHMI Vs. PREMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.123/2013 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Haveri is before this Court aggrieved by the rejection of I.A.No.20 by order dated 22.11.2019 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC.

(2.) The plaintiff/petitioner filed suit for partition and separate possession of suit schedule property. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that along with the plaint the plaintiff had also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, where the trial Court granted an order of injunction on 31.10.2013 restraining the defendants No.2 to 6 from in any way alienating the suit schedule properties or creating third party charge and the said interim order was continued from time to time and operating as on this date. The defendants No.2 to 6 alleged to have sold the property by making separate plots to the proposed respondents in the impleading application. The said application was opposed by the defendants. The trial Court under the impugned order rejected the application on the ground that the application is vague and no particulars have been furnished in the application and the affidavit accompanying the impleading application. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court in this writ petition.

(3.) On perusal of the application, I.A.No.20 filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC, the said application depicts the name of 18 persons to be impleaded in the suit on the ground that they are purchasers from defendants No.4 and 5. The affidavit would not give the particulars as to from whom the proposed respondents purchased the suit schedule property under which document.