NORA MENEZES Vs. P. NANJAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner being the defendant no.4 in the suit for declaration & possession filed by the contesting respondents herein in O.S.No.7568/2006 is invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 28.10.2016, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A, whereby the learned VI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru having entertained the plaintiffs application in I.A. No.7 has directed notice to the persons sought to be impleaded as defendants thereby. The respondents after service of notice having entered appearance through their counsel, resist the writ petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner attacks the impugned order stating that the suit is of the year 2006; it is founded on fraud, duplicity and collusion; the trial of the suit having taken place, the case was posted for arguments; the subject application in I.A.No.7 has been belatedly filed on 02.09.2016; it is designed to protract the suit proceedings to the great prejudice of these petitioners; without adverting to all these facts urged by the petitioner in his objections to I.A., the trial Court mindlessly has directed notice and therefore there is error apparent on the face of the record warranting indulgence of this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner also draws attention of the Court to the observations and findings made by Court in the earlier O.S.No.1150/2006 which have been reproduced in para 13 of his Written Statement, a copy whereof is at Annexure-E; this judgment and decree dismissing the same having attained finality prima facie shows that the respondent-plaintiff did not have any litigable interest in the property at all and that the persons sought to be impleaded now, have nothing to do with the suit; even this has not been adverted to by the court below while issuing notice on the impleading applicants constitutes yet another error apparent on the face of the record. Lastly, Mr.Shaik Ali Sab who is sought to be impleaded, is dead and gone long ago and despite urgement.