L PUTTAIAH Vs. ANNAIAPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 1st respondent-Annaiappa (since deceased by legal representatives) had filed O. S. No. 99/1992 on the file of the Civil judge (Jr. Dn.), Gubbi, against one Udedakalappa and Kalappa for a declaration that they are the owners of the deity "kalikanteswara" and also are the Archaks of the said temple and for permanent injunction. During the hearing of the said suit, the Revision Petitioners herein made an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of civil Procedure to be impleaded as Defendants. They contended in the application that they and the plaintiffs in the suit were originally residents of Madhugiri and they jointly constructed the temple in question and installed the deity "kalikanteswara" and the four branches of the plaintiffs and the applicants were worshipping by rotation. Therefore, they are the co-owners of the temple entitled to worship as owners along with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have no exclusive right either over the temple or as Archaks. The application came to be rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that they are not necessary parties and no document is produced to prove their right to temple: Besides, the plaintiffs have a right to represent the entire branch including the applicants. This order is questioned.

(2.) SRI B. Rudre Gowda, learned Counsel appearing for thepetitioners submitted that the applicants are necessary parties for complete adjudication of the claim made by the plaintiffs. Thf rejection of the application will only lead to multiplicity of the proceedings.

(3.) PER contra, Sri A. V. Gangadharappa, learned Counselappearing for the respondent No. 1 (a) - plaintiff -1 (a) defended the order. Firstly, he submitted that having regard to the language of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended, this Civil revision Petition is not maintainable, inasmuch as, the order of the trial Court will not have the effect of finally disposing of the matter. Secondly, he submitted that it is the plaintiffs choice to chooses his adversaries. No person can force on the plaintiff to make him also an adversary. The learned Counsel relied on the decision of the supreme Court in ANIL KUMAR SINGH vs SHIVNATH MISHRA @ gadasaguru and also the decision of the Allahabad Court in mohd. FAROOQ vs DISTRICT JUDGE, ALLAHABADf and that of banarsi DASS DURGA PRASAD vs PANNALAL RAM RICHHPAL oswal.