Karnataka HC Upholds Removal Of Former Govt Pleader Sued Over Opinion Behind Mutation Deleting Plaintiff’s Father’s And Uncle’s Names

The petitioner filed O.S. No. 716/2021 seeking declaration and mandatory injunction.

Defendant No. 5, a former District Government Pleader, applied under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC to have his name struck from the suit, stating that he had provided the Tahasildar a legal opinion based on judgments in earlier proceedings and that the Tahasildar had independently acted on it.

The plaintiff opposed the application, alleging that Defendant No. 5 had misused his position.

The Trial Court allowed the application on 17 December 2024, and the plaintiff challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Order I Rule 10(2) CPC permits the court to strike out a party who has been improperly joined; the relevant inquiry is whether that person is a necessary or proper party to the suit.

Section 151 CPC was invoked in the application, and Article 227 provided the basis for the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction.

The High Court found that Defendant No. 5 had given his opinion as District Government Pleader on the basis of the judgments in O.S. No. 348/2002 and R.A. No. 74/2014, and that the Tahasildar thereafter passed the mutation order deleting the names of the petitioner’s father and uncle.

The Court concluded that Defendant No. 5’s opinion, based on the records and given in his professional capacity, did not make him responsible for the Tahasildar’s action. He was therefore neither a necessary nor a proper party.

Finding that the Trial Court had correctly considered the material on record, the High Court saw no ground for supervisory interference.

The writ petition was dismissed.