DHARWAD-580 025 v. NOTICE TO R13 TO R15 ARE SERVED)

SMT. TARAMATI D/O SUBBARAO SORATUR, AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. I.L. PATIL COMPOUND, SHIVANAND NAGAR, 2ND CROSS, DHARWAD-580 025. … PETITIONER CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

JAYASHREE D/O SUBBARAO SORATUR, AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. DIVATE GALLI, SAVADATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 126.

KUMARI BHARATI D/O SUBBARAO SORATUR, AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. I.L. PATIL COMPOUND, SHIVANAND NAGAR, 2ND CROSS, DHARWAD-580 001.

KUMARI ROOPA D/O SUBBARAO SORATUR, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. NIL, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15515 WP No. 104151 of 2025 HC-KAR R/O. I.L. PATIL COMPOUND, SHIVANAND NAGAR, 2ND CROSS, DHARWAD-580 001.

SMT. PADMAVATI W/O BHIMARAO SORATUR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S.,

MANJUNATH S/O BHIMARAO SORATUR, AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,

SMT. NETRAVATI W/O RAMESH PATTAR, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,

DATTATREYA S/O BHIMARAO SORATUR, AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, RESPONDENT NO.5 TO 8 ARE R/O. YALAKKI SHETTAR COLONY, VISHWARKARMA NILAYA, P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD-580 004.

SMT. PARAVVA @ PARVATI W/O HANAMANTH SORATUR, AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,

KUMAR VINAYAK S/O HANAMANTH SORATUR, AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,

KUMARI GAYATRI D/O HANAMANTH SORATUR, AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,

KUMAR NAGARAJ S/O HANAMANTH SORATUR, AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, RESPONDENT NO.9 TO 12 ARE R/O. VISHWAKARMA NILAY, SHRIDEVI NAGAR, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15515 WP No. 104151 of 2025 HC-KAR OPP. K.M.F., HUBBALLI ROAD, DHARWAD-580 004.

SMT. SHARADABAI W/O CHANDRAKANT JANAMANE, AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,

SHRI. ANAND S/O CHANDRAKANT JANAMANE, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,

SHRI SANTOSH S/O CHANDRAKANT JANAMANE, AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, RESPONDENT NO.13 TO 15 ARE R/O. YALAKKI SHETTAR COLONY, P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD-580 004.

SRI. SURESH S/O MAHANTAPPA SHETTAR, AGE. 74 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. NRUPATUNGA HILL ROAD, MRUTUNJAYA NAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580 032. (BY SRI. MAHANTESH R. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. S.B. DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R16; SMT. P.R. BENTUR, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R12; NOTICE TO R13 TO R15 ARE SERVED) … RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, OR DIRECTION OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ANNEXURE-D DATED 11/06/2025 IN O.S. NO.164/2014, ON I.A. NO.48, ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DHARWAD. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15515 WP No. 104151 of 2025 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 11.06.2025 passed on I.A.No.48 in O.S.No.164/2014 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Dharwad1.

2. The Trial Court rejected the application under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to implead the person who claimed to be the General Power of Attorney holder of the petitioner and respondents No.1 to 4. Accordingly, the application was dismissed by the Trial Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 would submit that the defendants No.1 to 4 have taken a specific contention that they have not executed any General Power of Attorney in favour of Suresh, S/o. Mahantappa Shekhar, who is sought to be impleaded as one of the defendants in the case. It is therefore his contention that said Suresh is a necessary party to the suit, since both the petitioner and defendants No.1 to 4 have levelled allegation against him. It is submitted that, in 1 For short, the ‘Trial Court’ - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15515 WP No. 104151 of 2025 HC-KAR order to establish the contention that no General Power of Attorney was executed in favour of Suresh, it is necessary that Suresh be made a party to the proceeding.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the proposed defendant, who has already been made a party in this petition though not impleaded before the Trial Court, submits that a General Power of Attorney was executed in favour of proposed respondent No.16, and he has been examined before the Trial Court and has given a statement that the General Power of Attorney executed in his favour by the petitioner and defendants No.1 to 4 has been lost. It is his further submission that on 29.05.2023, he has filed a memo before the Trial Court stating that, in the event the General Power of Attorney is traced, the same will be placed before the Court.

5. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.

6. The suit is one for partition and separate possession. The plaintiffs contend that the alienation of property is illegal, as there was no Power of Attorney on their behalf. The plaintiffs - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15515 WP No. 104151 of 2025 HC-KAR have also contended that they have not executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Suresh S/o. Mahantappa Shekhar.

7. Thus, it is for the purchaser to establish the fact that there was a valid General Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 4 in favour of Suresh S/o. Mahantappa Shettar. Since defendants No.1 to 4, who have disputed the Power of Attorney, have summoned and examined the Power of Attorney holder.

8. The Court is of the view that the Power of Attorney holder is not a necessary party to the proceeding before the Trial Court. He has been represented before this Court through an advocate. The alleged Power of Attorney holder who has been made a party to the present petition, is duly represented by counsel, and is permitted to make submissions. It is evident that the Power of Attorney holder is aware of the proceeding pending before the Court, wherein it is alleged that no Power of Attorney was executed in his favour. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15515 WP No. 104151 of 2025 HC-KAR

9. Under these circumstances, the contesting defendants should not raise a contention that the Power of Attorney holder is a necessary party to the proceeding.

10. Since, the alleged Power of Attorney holder is examined before the Trial Court, this Court does not find any reason to implead the Power of Attorney holder as a party to the proceeding.

11. In case the Power of Attorney holder does not produce the Power of Attorney, the Court may proceed to draw adverse inference, if it is so available after considering the other materials on record.

12. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE PMP CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 9