VISHALKSHAMMA Vs. MALLIKARJUN TRUST COMMITTEE, KOPPAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff has sought for quashing of the order passed by the Additional JMFC and Civil Judge dated 19.09.2013, whereunder I.A. Nos.3 and 4 filed by the plaintiff seeking to implead proposed defendants as defendants 10 to 17 (Government Authorities) and for consequential amendment of the plaint has been rejected.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of Shri. Ravi V. Hosamani appearing for respondent - State. Perused the impugned order.

(3.) Plaintiff has filed a suit for mandatory injunction to demolish the constructed portion in the suit schedule property as described in the prayer column of plaint and for a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants 1 to 9 from putting up any construction and interfering in any manner with the alleged possession and enjoyment of the suit property by plaintiff contending inter alia that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and she has succeeded to the same through her father late Gurayya Swamy. Defendants have appeared and filed their written statement and averments made in the plaint came to be denied. At the request of defendants 1 to 9, the Governmental Authorities are said to have constructed a Yatri Nivas and handed over possession to the 1st defendant - Mutt. Plaintiff has filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC seeking for those Governmental Authorities who were involved in putting up the construction over the suit schedule property to be arrayed as defendants 10 to 17 along with an application for amendment of the plaint explaining as to how defendants 10 to 17 have put up construction during the pendency of the suit and prayed for said pleas to be included in the plaint. Trial Court as such has rightly taken up both the applications for consideration and has found that when the suit is for mandatory injunction, even in the event of suit being decreed, defendants 1 to 9 will be directed to demolish the construction and authorities who have put up construction namely proposed defendants 10 to 17 would have no role whatsoever in executing the said decree, even if ultimately being passed in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, Trial Court has rightly held that they are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit in question. There is no infirmity committed by the Trial Court in this regard.