Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 81833 (KAR)

SRI G N PRAKASH v. SMT SANDHYA RAVINDRANATH

WP/16255/2025 · 2025-09-12

M Nagaprasanna

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36315 WP No. 16255 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 16255 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI G.N.PRAKASH S/O LATE G.N. GIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.442 RANKA PARK APARTMENTS LALBAGH MAIN ROAD NEAR RICHMOND CIRCLE BENGALURU – 560 027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SHRIDHARA K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SANDHYA RAVINDRANATH W/O C. RAVINDRANATH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. 2. MR. R. MANAV, S/O C. RAVINDRANATH AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS 3. MASTER R. RAGHAV, S/O C. RAVINDRANATH AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36315 WP No. 16255 of 2025 SMT. SANDHYA RAVINDRANATH ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.16, 1ST CROSS, MISSION ROAD CROSS, SREENIVASA COLONY, BENGALURU – 560 027. 4. M/S. GANAPATHI SILKS, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.10 1ST FLOOR, 2ND CROSS, C.K. CHENNAPPA GARDEN LALBAGH ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR. G.N. CHIRANJEEVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G.SANJAY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF O.S. NO.874/2022 FROM THE COURT OF THE XXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY (CCH-31); II. QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.03.2025 REJECTING I.A. NO.XI FILED UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC AS ANNEXURE-A; III. ALLOW THE IMPLEADING APPLICATION NO.11 AND DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT TO IMPLEAD THE PETITIONER AS DEFENDANT NO.2 AS ANNEXURE-D. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36315 WP No. 16255 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is the proposed defendant No.2 in OS No.874 of 2022 filed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein seeking ejectment of the 4th respondent/defendant therein. 2. Heard Sri Shridhara K, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri G Sanjay, learned counsel appearing for caveator-respondent No.1. 3. A suit comes to be instituted by the respondents 1 to 3 in OS No.874 of 2022 seeking ejectment and delivery of vacant possession of the plaint schedule property. The defendant entered his appearance and filed his written statement. An application comes to be filed by one of the partners who is the tenant in the suit schedule property seeking to implead into the proceedings. The said application comes to be rejected in terms of the order of the Court dated 22-4-2024. The rejection of the said application becomes final. Now springs the subject application at the hands of the present petitioner. The - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36315 WP No. 16255 of 2025 petitioner claiming that he is now in-charge of the affairs of the partnership firm has filed an application in the subject suit seeking to implead himself as proposed defendant No.2. The concerned Court, in terms of its order dated 26-03-2025 rejects the said application, rejection of which has driven the proposed defendant to this Court in the subject petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the earlier defendant who is one of the partners of the partnership firm had not contested the suit properly or has colluded with the owner. Therefore, the interest of the partnership firm was put to jeopardy. Since the affairs of the firm are in the hands of the present petitioner, the petitioner becomes a proper and necessary party in the proceedings. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would vehemently refute the submissions in contending that the defendant is guilty of violation of the interim order passed by the concerned Court on 19-08-2025. Striking of defence has now become final. After all these proceedings the present impleading application has sprung only to drag the proceedings. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36315 WP No. 16255 of 2025 He is neither necessary nor proper party, as one of the partner is already a defendant in the said suit. He would seek to place reliance upon Section 25 of the Partnership Act. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The plaintiffs are the respondents 1 to 3. They institute a suit in O.S.No.874 of 2022 seeking ejectment of the defendant and delivery of vacant possession. The defendant defends the suit by filing statement of objections. One partner seeks to file impleading application which comes to be rejected and the rejection of which becomes final. The petitioner then files an application under order 1 Rule 10 CPC to which the plaintiffs have objected. After considering the objections and the averments in the plaint, the concerned Court by the following order rejects the application: “REASONS 7. Point No. 1: The counsel for the proposed defendant No.2 filed the present application under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC and prays permission to come on - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36315 WP No. 16255 of 2025 record as defendant No.2. In the accompanying affidavit, the proposed defendant submits that plaintiff has instituted the present suit against the defendant alone, seeking the relief of ejectment and other consequential reliefs. Further, it is submitted that, defendant is not individual and is registered partnership firm consisting of 10 partners. It is submitted that plaintiff has filed the present suit without making all the 10 partners as parties in the suit and also submits that defendant No.1 represented by G.N.Chiranjeevi is not authorized or empowered to deal alone on behalf of the defendant partnership firm. It is submitted that defendant has not informed the filing of the present suit to other partners and came to know about the same recently from reliable sources and immediately obtained the necessary documents. It is submitted that as per the partnership deed, no individual partner has no independent right in respect of defendant firm, however, the plaintiff had entered into rental agreement with the defendant alone. Therefore, it is submitted that the proposed defendant No.2 is necessary and proper party to the proceedings and therefore, prays permission to come on record. 8. On the otherhand, the counsel for the plaintiff filed objection statement and submits that the application filed by the defendant lacks bonafides and misconceived application and therefore, liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff submits that he has filed the suit against the defendant in the year 2021 and sought to deposit the arrears of rent and submits that defendant has not paid the rent for more than two years. It is submitted that the proposed defendant No.2 has filed the present application just to protract the proceedings and to avoid payment of rents though this Court has already directed the defendant to deposit the arrears of rent in respect of IA No. I. Hence, prays to dismiss the application. 9. This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant partnership firm represented by its partner Sri.G.N.Chiranjeevi seeking to pass the judgment and decree directing the defendant to quit, vacate and handover the possession and also to direct the defendant to pay the arrears of rent of Rs.9,90,000/- and other consequential reliefs. As such, the plaintiff had filed an - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36315 WP No. 16255 of 2025 application I.A.No.I under Section 151 of CPC seeking direction to defendant to pay the arrears of rent of Rs.9,90,000/-. The said application was allowed by this Court vide its order dated 22.04.2024. It is observed that defendant has not deposited the said amount before this Court till date. Further, it is pertinent to note that defendant had previously filed an application IA No.IX under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead the proposed defendant Sri.G.N.Ganesh and the said application was dismissed by this Court by holding that he is not necessary party for the proper adjudication of the present suit and also by holding that there is no necessity to implead the other partners as the defendant has represented the suit on behalf of the defendant firm. In the instant application, the proposed defendant has submitted that no individual, partner has any right to act on behalf of the partnership firm. Further, it is submitted that defendant represented by G N Chiranjeevi though not have any independent right, had entered into rental agreement with the plaintiff. Therefore, it is submitted that, he is proper and necessary party to the proceedings and prays to allow the application. 10. On the otherhand, the plaintiff submits that the proposed defendant No.2 is not a necessary party for the proper adjudication of the case and has filed the present application only to protract the proceedings. In this regard it is relevant to refer Section 25 of the Partnership Act, which reads as follows: Section 25. Liability of a partner for acts of the firm.- Every partner is liable, jointly with all the other partners and also severally, for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner. The provision of law clearly contemplates that every partner is jointly liable for the acts of the firm, which means a suit can be brought against any one of the partners without requiring all the partners to be joined in the suit. That, this Court is of the view that defendant partnership firm is substantially represented in the present suit by its representative Sri.G.N.Chiranjeevi and therefore, the requirement of the proposed defendant No.2 is not necessary for the proper adjudication of the case. Further, this is not a suit where collective rights - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36315 WP No. 16255 of 2025 and liabilities of the partners are in issue, such as suit for accounts in respect of the partnership firm, therefore impleading other partners is of no use for the proper adjudication of the present suit and if the application is allowed the same may lead to bring the new case and may frustrate the proceedings in the present suit. The defendant has submitted that there is already one more suit is pending in respect of the dispute between partners of the defendant firm and therefore the defendant or any other partner of the defendant firm can pursue their remedy in the said suit itself. Therefore, on the basis of above findings and observations this Court decides to reject the application. Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered in the Negative. 11. Point No.2: In view of the foregoing reasons and as per the observations made in respect of point No.1, this Court proceeds to pass the following:- ORDER The IA No.XI under Order I Rule 10(2) R/w Section 151 of CPC filed by the proposed defendant No.2 is hereby rejected. (Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II directly on Computer, computerized by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court this the 26th day of March, 2025.). Sd/-26/03/25 (MADHU N.R) XXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.” The reason rendered by the concerned Court is found to be cogent for the fact that the other partner who had been representing the suit was found guilty of not complying with the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36315 WP No. 16255 of 2025 interim order of deposit of rent by several orders. Therefore, the defence of the said defendant had been struck off. 8. The petitioner now wants to implead as proposed defendant No.2, notwithstanding the fact that the other partner has contested the suit and filed written statement and the matter is set at ease, at the fag end. Be that as it may. In terms of section 25 of the Partnership Act, the liability of a firm is joint and several. If one of the partners is representing the representative suit as defendants, it would suffice for it to be joint and several. All the partners coming in trying to drag the proceedings or one shooting from the shoulder of the other cannot be permitted. There is no warrant of interference with the finding rendered by the concerned Court rejecting the application filed under order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC. 9. Finding no merit, the petition stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BKP/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32