BHUJANGA HEDGE Vs. SAKARAMA HEGDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under S. 115 C.P.C. has been preferred by defendants 3 and 4, in Original Suit 6 of 1966, on the file of the Civil Judge at Udipi. It is directed apainst an Order made in I.A. No. 467 of 1967 in the said suit. The said I.A. had been preferred by the 13th defendant in the suit for impleading her brother as a supplemental defendant and being arraved as 14th defendant in the said suit. The Civil Judge allowed the application.

(2.) The original suit in question is one filed by a member of a 'kavaru' of an Aliyasanlhana family against the other members of that 'Kavaru' for partition and separate possession of the properties belonging to them. In the course of the proceedings in the suit the present proposed supplemental defendant, Sakarama Hegde, applied for being impleaded as a party to the suit in R.I.A. 425/66. His request was refused. During the hearing of the said I. A., it would appear that both the parties to the suit were opposed to the request made by bakarama Hegde. Some time subsequent to the date of the Order in R.I.A. 425/6 the present application came to be filed. Her case is that the proposed supplemental defendant would be a necessary party to the suit as he is a member of the same 'Kavaru' to which all the parties in the suit belong and therefore, his presence would be necessary for an effective and complete adjudication of the controversies arising in the suit, one of which is said to relate to the construction of a document styled as a 'partition deed' alleged to have been executed in favour of the said supplemental defendant on 28-6-55. It is, however, unnecessary for my present purpose to set out the actual questions that may arise in the context of such a 'partition deed'. It is sufficient to observe that one of the allegations in that behalf is that the said supplemental defendant had separated from the family and as such he was not entitled to any share in the properties of the 'Kavaru'. The learned Civil Judge allowed the application of the 13th defendant and permitted the impieading of the supplemental defendant No. 14. It is this order that is in question here at the instance of defendants 3 and 4 in the suit.

(3.) Sri N. Santhosh Hegde, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners urged the following contentions:- (i) That in view of the earlier order in R.I.A. 425/66 the application giving rise to the present Order was barred by general principles of law, if not on the principles of res judicata as enacted in S. 11 C.P.C.; (2) That the order in question amounts to a review of the earlier order in R.I.A. 425/66 and the Court had no jurisdiction or power to review as such; and (3) that the person proposed to be added was not a necessary party to the suit.