RANKA VILLA ASSOCIATION Vs. RAMESH SANTANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr.Ravindra Prasad B., learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.B.G.Sriram, learned counsel for the respondent. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dtd. 9/8/2016 passed by the Trial Court by which the application filed by the petitioner / plaintiff under Order 3 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been rejected.

(2.) Facts leading to the filing of this petition briefly stated are that the petitioner is an association registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. The petitioner filed a suit against the respondent for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,48,529.00 along with interest on account of maintenance charges. The Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of parties, framed issues. Thereafter, the erst while president of the petitioner -association, who was the authorized representative of the petitioner / plaintiff association namely Sriranga, filed the examination-in-chief and documents namely Ex.P1 to P11 were exhibited. Thereafter, the matter was posted for cross-examination of PW-1. The authorized representative of the petitioner had expressed that he is not in a position to lead further evidence before the Trial Court on account of personal difficulties.

(3.) Thereupon, the petitioner / plaintiff withdrew the authorization of aforesaid Sriranga and passed a resolution appointing one Narayan Hegde as authorized representative. The petitioner / plaintiff filed an application for production of resolution along with the interlocutory application seeking permission of the Trial Court to permit Narayan Hegde to proceed with the suit. The respondent did not file any objection to the application. However, the prayer made in the application was orally opposed. The Tribunal inter alia held that if the interlocutory application filed by the plaintiff/ petitioner is allowed, it will end in multiplicity of the proceedings and it shall cause prejudice to the petitioner. However, the application has been rejected. In the aforesaid factual background, this petition has been filed.