Giriyappa Gowda vs Grama Panchayath, Kabaka

B. Manohar, J.—Petitioner is the plaintiff in OS No. 52/2010 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge [Jr. Dn], Puttur, DK. Being aggrieved by the order dated 6.12.2010 made on I.A. No. 3 allowing the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

Petitioner filed the suit seeking for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and its men, officials or servants from trespassing into suit ''C'' schedule property and forming or repairing any road or causing damage to ''C'' schedule property in any manner and also for other reliefs. In the suit, it was contended that plaintiff is absolute owner of property bearing Sy. No. 131/4 of Kabaka village. The property bearing Sy. No. 132/3, which is adjacent to the property of the plaintiff, is a government land. Petitioner is using the said land as kumki land to warga land. Hence, he is entitled to enjoy the said land and grow manure in the land for the purpose of better cultivation of agricultural land. However, 1st respondent/Grama Panchayat wanted to form a road and interfered with the enjoyment of plaintiff without extinguishing the kumki right. In view of that, he filed the suit with the above prayer.

The defendant filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. Some of the villagers filed I.A. No. 3 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. to implead them as parties to the said suit contending that they are using the mud road situated in Sy. No. 132/3 over last 65 years. In the said road existence of 100 meters, mud road to reach various survey numbers. If any injunction is granted, the impleading applicants will be put to great hardship. The plaintiff suppressing several real facts has filed the suit. The impleading applicants pleaded several facts and sought to implead them as defendants No. 2 to 4 in the suit. Plaintiff filed objections to I.A. No. 3 contending that applicants are not proper or necessary parties for adjudication of dispute. Hence, he filed the suit against the Grama Panchayat restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and sought for dismissal of application.

The Trial Court after considering the matter in detail allowed I.A. No. 3 and permitted the applicants to come on record as defendants No. 2 to 4 in the suit. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

Sri Chandranath Ariga, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the order passed by the Trial Court is contrary to law and the applicants are not necessary and proper parties for adjudication of the dispute in the suit. The applicants with an intention to drag on the proceedings filed I.A. No. 3. There is no bona fide in the order impugned. The Trial Court passed the order without considering all these aspects of the matter and sought for allowing the writ petition by setting aside the order on I.A. No. 3 passed by the Trial Court.

On the other hand, Sri Vishwajith Shetty, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1 argued in support of the order passed by the Trial Court and contended that the applicants are proper and necessary parties and they are the villagers using the existing road in Sy. No. 132/3. Further, instead of leading the evidence, petitioner is prosecuting this writ petition and sought for dismissal of the writ petition by affirming the order impugned.

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned and other relevant records.

The records clearly disclose that petitioner being the owner of Sy. No. 131/4 filed the suit claiming that he is enjoying the property bearing Sy. No. 132/3 as kumki land and enjoying usufructs grown for better cultivation of agricultural land. However, 1st respondent/Grama Panchayat formed road or repaired the existing road without extinguishing the kumki right and sought for prohibitory order of injunction restraining the defendant from enjoyment of the said land. Some of the villagers after coming to know of filing of the suit filed I.A. No. 3 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. to implead them as defendants No. 2 to 4 mainly contending that they are using the existing road situated in Sy. No. 132/3 for the last 65 years. The plaintiff suppressing several facts filed the suit. If any order is passed, it will adversely affect the interest of the applicants, who sought to implead them as parties to the proceedings.

The Trial Court after examining the matter found that applicants are the villagers and they are proper and necessary parties for adjudication of the dispute. If any order is passed in the suit with regard to property bearing Sy. No. 132/3, it will adversely affect the interest of the applicants. Hence applicants are necessary parties to the suit. Accordingly, the Trial Court allowed I.A. No. 3. I find that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the order passed by the Trial Court permitting the applicants to come on record as defendants No. 2 to 4. Whether there is existence of road in Sy. No. 132/3 to be decided in the suit filed by plaintiff in a trial. The fact remains that applicants are the villagers and are claiming that they are using the existing road in Sy. No. 132/3. If any order is passed, it will adversely affect the interest of applicants. Hence, they want to come on record to have their say in the matter. If the application is rejected, it will give rise to multiplicity of proceedings. The Trial Court after considering the entire matter in detail allowed I.A. No. 3.

At this stage, Sri Vishwajithshetty, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1 contended that the pleadings of parties are complete, issues have been framed and the matter has been posted for evidence. Hence, at this stage, interference by this Court is not called for. The plaintiff has to prove his case by leading evidence and producing necessary documents. The order passed by the Trial Court will not affect the interest of the plaintiff in any way. I find there is some substance in the submission of Sri Vishwajithshetty. Petitioner has to prove his case by producing necessary documents and leading evidence. If the petitioner succeeds in the suit, the Court can pass necessary orders which will bind the applicants also. No ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court.

Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.