RAMARAO MAHARAJ Vs. K. ROOPLANAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

(2.) Sri.Umesh Moolimani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.S.V.Prakash, learned counsel for petitioner No.2 submits that the petitioners filed O.S.272/2013 seeking a relief of declaration that plaintiff No.2 is the religious head and Swamiji of the community at Suragondanakoppa Village and also sought further relief of injunction. In the said suit respondent No.6 filed an application for impleadment which came to be allowed by the trial Court without appreciating the fact that he is neither a necessary nor proper party to adjudicate the prayer sought in the plaint. It is submitted that respondent No.6 is claiming to be a poojary performing pooja of two temples and other defendants i.e. respondent Nos.1 to 5, who claim to be the management committee of Sri. Santha Sevalal Janmasthana Jeernodhara Samiti and respondent No.6 has to establish his right in an independent suit and cannot seek for impleadment in the suit filed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner, who is a dominus litus can choose the parties and if he has chosen wrong parties, ultimately, he would suffer the consequences. In support of his contentions he places his reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudhamayee Pattnaik v. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo and Others, AIR 2022 SC 4304 and seeks to set aside the impugned order by allowing the petition.

(3.) Per contra, Sri.Veerayya Hiremath, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 6 supports the order of the trial Court and submits that respondent No.6 filed an application for impleadment and produced several documents before the trial Court to substantiate that respondent No.6 is performing pooja at Sevalal and Mariyamma Devi temples from their inception and also receiving a monthly remuneration of Rs.1,000.00 per month and the same has now been enhanced to Rs.6,000.00. It is submitted that if the relief sought in the plaint is granted, then the rights of respondent No.6 would be affected. Hence, respondent No.6 is a necessary and proper party to the suit filed by the petitioners and seeks to dismiss the petition.