G. S. PRABHA Vs. MAHESH D CHANDRAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition by the impleading applicant in O.S.No.201/2014 on the file of the Principle Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysore is directed against the impugned order dtd. 31/3/2022 passed on I.A.No.14, whereby the said application filed by the impleading applicant seeking permission to implead themselves as additional defendant in the suit was rejected by the trial Court.

(2.) The material on record discloses that respondent No.1 - plaintiff has instituted the aforesaid suit against respondent Nos.2 to 5 as defendants for specific performance of an alleged sale agreement and other relief. The said suit is being contested by respondent Nos.2 to 5 - defendants. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners herein, claiming independent right, title, interest and possession over the suit schedule property, filed the instant application seeking impleadment by putting forth contentions as regards their alleged right, title, interest and possession over the suit schedule property. The said application having been opposed by respondent No.1 - plaintiff, the trial Court has proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting I.A.No.14, by holding as under:

(3.) As can be seen from the material on record as well as the impugned order, the petitioners are not parties to the alleged agreement to sell sought to be enforced by respondent No.1 against respondent Nos.2 to 5. On other hand, the petitioners claim independent right, title, interest and possession over the suit schedule property and consequently as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal and others reported in AIR 2005 SC 2813, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners cannot said to be proper or necessary parties to the suit and the impugned order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity occasioning failure of justice and warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same decisions to be disposed of without interfering in the impugned order.