Writ Petition No. 33473 of 2019 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3288 WP No. 33473 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 33473 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI B.S. BABU S/O LATE SHIVARAM AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O KYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABAL HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. (BY SRI.H.N. BASAVARAJU., ADVOCATE) AND:
Legal Reasoning
1. SMT. PREMA W/O G.C. VAIDYAANTH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS #466, GUTTALU EXTENSION, THERINA BEEDHI, ARAKESHWAR NAGAR MANDYA. …PETITIONER Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 2. SRI. K.P. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE PUTTASWAMYGOWDA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS 3. SRI. K.P. KRISHNEGOWDA S/O LATE PUTTASWAMYGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 4. SRI. K.S. YOGESH S/O LATE SHIVARAM AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 5. SMT. K.M. SUSHEELAMMA W/O B.R. LOKESH MAJOR IN AGE, 6. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O SWAMIGOWDA MAJOR IN AGE - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3288 WP No. 33473 of 2019 7. SMT. M.V. VANAJAKSHAMMA W/O GURURAJ MAJOR IN AGE 8. SRI. K.T. VISHVESHWAR S/O K.V. THIMMEGOWDA MAJOR IN AGE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 8 ARE ALL R/O KYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. 9. SRI. K. PUTTARAMU S/O K.P. KAVERIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEAWRS R/O KYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. (R1 & R9 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED 11.06.2020 NOTICE TO R2 TO R8 ARE DISPENSED WITH) …RESPONDENTS IS THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.02.2019 PASSED ON THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10.2 R.W SECTION 151 OF THE CPC AS PER ANNEXURE.F AND THE ORDER DATED 25.06.2019 PASSED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE APLICATION U.S 114 R.W 151 OF CPC FILED BY PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE.H BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC PANDAVAPURA IN O.S.NO.4.2016; CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE THE ORDER DATED 21.03.2018 PASSED ON THE APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10 R.W SECTION 151 OF THE CPC FILED BY THE PETITIONER OR DEFENDANT NO.3 IN O.S.NO.4.2016 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC PANDAVAPURA AS PER ANNEXURE.D. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3288 WP No. 33473 of 2019 ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the orders passed in an I.A. filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.4/2016 dated 21.02.2019 and dated 25.06.2019 by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Pandavapura, the petitioner/ defendant No.3 is before this Court. 2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for partition. The defendant No.3 has filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead proposed party as defendant No.9. It is the case that the joint family property is alienated in favour of defendant No.9 and the petition came to be allowed by order dated 21.03.2018. Thereafter, the defendant No.9 had filed an application to strike out or delete him from the suit. It is the case of defendant No.9 that he is not at all related either to the schedule properties involved in the suit or to the parties of the suit. The record also reveals that in spite of granting opportunities neither the defendant No.3 nor the plaintiff have filed any objections to the said application and therefore, the reasons as made out in the application has virtually been undisputed, unchallenged and uncontroverted. Accordingly, the trial Court had allowed the application. The defendant No.3 had - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3288 WP No. 33473 of 2019 filed an application under Section 114 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking review of the said order. That also came to be dismissed observing that no objections were filed by the defendant No.3. As no objections were filed by defendant No.3, the trial Court had passed such an order and there are no reasons to review the order. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ defendant No.3 submits that when he has clearly shown and filed the sale deed to show that one of the suit schedule property has been purchased by defendant No.9 and on his application, he has been impleaded as defendant to the suit. When an application is filed by defendant No.9 to delete him, for deleting him as a defendant from the suit, the Court ought to have given reasons and just taking the pleadings of defendant No.9, the Court had allowed the application. Further, when the review is filed without considering the grounds taken in support of the review petition had dismissed the same. 4. Notice to respondent No.2 to 8 is dispensed with at the risk of petitioner. Respondent Nos.1 and 9 are served and no vakalath is filed on their behalf. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3288 WP No. 33473 of 2019 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the order impugned before this Court. When there is a basis for the Court to implead defendant No.9 on an application filed by defendant No.3, that order was not questioned by defendant No.9 and he just submits that he is unconnected with the plaintiff. The trial Court has not even considered on what basis he is saying that he is unconnected with the plaintiff. Another important factor is that defendant No.3 has not filed his objections. There is no doubt that there are lapses on the part of the defendant No.3. But while striking out or deleting defendant No.9 from the suit just because defendant No.3 has not filed his objections, that too after allowing an application to implead defendant No.9, the Court ought not to have passed an order in such manner and also the Court has failed to review the order of the reasons stated by defendant No.3. 6. Considering all these aspects, the order impugned is liable to be set aside and the matter requires to be remanded back to the trial Court. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following order: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3288 WP No. 33473 of 2019
Decision
ORDER i. The orders passed in I.A. filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.4/2016 dated 21.02.2019 and dated 25.06.2019 by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Pandavapura, are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court. ii. The defendant No.3 shall file his objections to the application and on such objections, the trial Court shall consider the case. iii. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. iv. All I.As. in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46