LAWS(KAR)-2022-8-466

L. GOVINDARAJU Vs. BASAVARAJA B.A.

Decided On August 23, 2022
L. Govindaraju Appellant
V/S
Basavaraja B.A. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the applicant in O.S.No.203/2011 on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, challenging an order dtd. 11/9/2015, in terms of which, an application filed by him for impleadment was rejected in view of the default of his counsel in appearing before the Court.

(2.) A suit in O.S.No.203/2011 was filed for the relief of declaration and injunction in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.14/1 of Jinkethimmanahalli @ Varanasi Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. After the said suit was filed, the petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.906/2011 on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, for specific performance of an agreement of sale dtd. 11/12/2003 allegedly executed by the defendant in O.S.No.203/2011. In the suit filed in O.S.No.906/2011, the Trial Court had passed an order of injunction restraining the defendant in O.S.No.203/2011 from alienating the suit schedule property and from changing the nature of the property, which was initially in force for a period of ten months from the date of the order. Later, an application was filed by the petitioner herein in O.S.No.203/2011 for impleadment in the suit since he apprehended that the parties in O.S.No.203/2011 may bring about an unconscionable compromise by suppressing the agreement of sale dtd. 11/12/2003. This application was listed on 26/5/2011 for objections to the application. Unfortunately, the counsel for the petitioner was absent on 10/7/2015 and the case was adjourned to 11/9/2015. On 11/9/2005, again the counsel and the petitioner were absent. Hence, the application was rejected.

(3.) The petitioner has challenged this order of rejection of his application on various grounds. One of the contentions urged in the writ petition is that the application ought to have been considered on merits notwithstanding the absence of the counsel on the hearing date and that the Trial Court failed to pass a speaking order.