KARNATAKA KHADI GRAMODYOG Vs. RAVIKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these appeals the applicants/appellants were not parties in the suits O.S.No.1529/2014, O.S.No.1532/2014, O.S.No.1534/2014 and O.S.No.7758/2016. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.1529/2014 sought for declaring that the sale agreement dated 05.08.1992 was barred by limitation and not binding on the them. In O.S.No.1532/2014, the plaintiffs sought for a similar declaration in respect of sale agreements dated 05.08.1992 and 31.10.1989. In O.S.No.1534/2014, in respect of agreement dated 27.07.1992, a declaration to that effect was sought. In O.S.7758/2016 same declaration in respect of agreement of sale dated 03.08.1992 was sought. The trail court decreed all these suits holding that these agreements are time barred and do not bind the plaintiffs.

(2.) The applicants/appellants have made applications under Section 151 CPC seeking leave of this court to prefer these appeals. In the affidavits sub- joined with the applications, it is stated that registered agreements of sale as mentioned above were executed by the respondents 1 to 4 in the appeals in favour of Karnataka State Khadi and Village Industries Workers House Building Co-operative Society ("Housing Society" for short). At the time of executing agreements of sale, general power of attorney was also executed in favour of office bearers of the said Housing Society. Pursuant to this power of attorney the sale deeds were executed in favour of the applicants/appellants. When the applicants/appellants came to know about the suits filed against the said Housing Society and others, some of the applicants wanted to get themselves impleaded in some of the suits and therefore they made applications under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC, but the applications were dismissed. They state that they do have interest in the subject matter of the suit. Actually they were necessary parties. The impugned judgments and decree affect their interest and therefore they have every right to question and challenge the judgments of the trial court. They are aggrieved persons.

(3.) These applications are opposed by the plaintiffs / respondents and also the Housing Society, which was one of the defendants in the suit.