S. SUMALATHA Vs. OBAKKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness and legality of the order dtd. 20/2/2023 passed on I.A.No.13 filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC in O.S.No.849/2016 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli (for short, 'Trial Court') to implead the Special Land Acquisition Officer of KIADB, Bengaluru as defendant No.5.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel Sri.Balaji Raghunathan for petitioner and perused the writ petition papers.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner/plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.849/2016 against respondent Nos.1 to 4 for recovery of a sum of Rs.29,38,000.00 together with future interest at the rate of 18% p.a., based on the agreement of sale dtd. 12/10/2009. Learned counsel would submit that the agreement was for sale of land and the said land subsequently came to be acquired by KIADB. Therefore, as the land was not available, the petitioner/plaintiff filed suit for recovery of money. He submits that the as the lands are acquired and compensation is being paid to the respondents, if the respondents receive the compensation amount, the plaintiff would be left with nothing to realize the amount, if he succeeds in the suit filed for recovery of money. Learned counsel would submit that The Trial Court dismissed the impleading application only on the ground that the Special Land Acquisition Officer is not a party to the agreement on the basis of which suit for recovery is filed. Learned counsel would submit that though the Special Land Acquisition Officer is not a necessary party to the suit, but as the amount would be disbursed in favour of the respondents, thereafter the petitioner would not be in a position to realize the amount, if he succeeds in the suit, the Special Land Acquisition Officer would be necessary party.