M. RAJENDRAN Vs. T. SATHYANARAYANA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER herein, who was the plaintiff in OS No. 203 of 2008, on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr Dn) and JMFC, Sidlaghatta, is questioning the order dated 2 -6 -2012, passed on IA -IV filed under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC.

(2.) THE petitioner filed the suit against Sathyanarayana Reddy for specific performance of the contract in respect of Sy No. 67/2 measuring 28 guntas; Sy No. 67/4 measuring 1 acre 14 guntas; Sy No. 63/1A measuring 1 acre 11 guntas; Sy No. 63/1B measuring 1 acre 11 guntas; and Sy No. 63/4 measuring 1 acre 38 guntas, in all measuring 6 acres 22 guntas, situated at Tadur village, Jagamanakote hobli, Sidlaghatta taluk in Chikkaballapur district. In the suit, the second respondent M/s. Universal Flora Limited, a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, filed an application to come on record, stating that the plaintiff has instituted the suit against Sathyanarayana Reddy in respect of the properties standing in the name of the company and therefore the company is entitled to come on record as second defendant in the suit to contest the claim of the plaintiff, as the rights of the company is at stake. The trial court allowed the said application permitting M/s. Universal Flora Limited to come on record as second defendant. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and in the background of the submission by Sri C M Nagabhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner and on a perusal of the application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC by M/s. Universal Flora Limited, more particularly, para -2 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, sworn to by Arvind Gowda, director and authorized signatory of M/s. Universal Flora Limited, which discloses that all these properties are standing in the name of M/s. Universal Flora Limited acquired under registered sale deeds of different dates, this court is of the opinion that if the petitioner -plaintiff is claiming right in respect of the properties standing in the name of M/s. Universal Flora Limited, the company has to be considered as a proper and necessary party to the suit. Since, the learned counsel for the petitioner -plaintiff submits that the claim of the petitioner -plaintiff is not in respect of the properties standing in the name of M/s. Universal Flora Limited, the apprehension of the company that its rights would be affected in respect of the properties standing in its name cannot be accepted.