SHIVANNA Vs. RAMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question, the order dated 25 -6 -2013 passed by the trial court in O.S. No. 1506/2011 on I.A. filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C. vide Annexure -E. By the impugned order at Annexure -E, the trial court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner to implead the respondent No. 4 as party to the proceedings.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the second respondent has contended that the suit schedule property was sold in his favour by one Lakkamma and Ramaiah, the father of the first respondent and thereafter, in the partition between the second and fourth respondent the suit schedule property has fallen to the share of the fourth respondent and therefore, the fourth respondent is a necessary party to the proceedings and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.