Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 411 (KAR)

H. K. RAJANNA v. H. B. CHIKKABORAIAH

2002-06-28

H.N.NARAYAN

body2002
H. N. NARAYAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS matter coming on for admission this day, the same is taken up for final disposal with the consent of both parties, heard and disposed of by this order. ( 2 ) THE delay of 70 days in filing this Revision Petition is condoned. ( 3 ) IN a suit for recovery of money, the Trial Court has allowed the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, by the 3rd party who made certain allegations that the parties to the suit in collusion are attempting to get adecree to defeat the claim of the impleading applicant. It is submitted before this Court that the impleading applicant has also filed a suit for recovery of certain amount from the defendants. Firstly, it is admitted that the Court below was not in a position to grant him any relief in the said suit and, therefore, the Trial Court could not have allowed the application to implead him as a necessary party. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents has relied on the judgment rendered by the Division bench of this Court in the case of K. Srinivasa Murthy Setty v. District Magistrate, Davanagere district, Davanagere and Ors. , ILR 2000 Karnataka Series, Short Note 28, and contended that since an order passed on an. A. filed by the second respondent herein, under Order 1 Rule 10 of civil Procedure Code, is not revisable, as no case is decided, this Revision is not maintainable. It is observed by the Division Bench in the case cited supra, that the order is only an. A. order and does not affect the rights of the parties, it is only for the progress of the parties so as to reach final determination and the order does not amount to a case decided. The purpose of impleading a party in a suit is to decide a case once for all against the parties interested. It is not shown whether the impleading applicant is a necessary and proper party also in the suit. Such an order is really perversed and is not sustainable in law. Though the order is not reversible as held by the division Bench of this Court, it is an illegal order which cannot be allowed to stand. It is not shown whether the impleading applicant is a necessary and proper party also in the suit. Such an order is really perversed and is not sustainable in law. Though the order is not reversible as held by the division Bench of this Court, it is an illegal order which cannot be allowed to stand. This Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has made this order. ( 5 ) REVISION is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside.