Rayappa S/O Mallappap Heggannavar v. Kumar. Amit S/O Rayappa Heggannavar

Karnataka HC1 Sept 2021WP/103630/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed a cryptic, unreasoned order of the trial court allowing an amendment of plaint to include additional properties. The court directed the trial court to reconsider the application on merits within six months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 07.02.2018 allowing amendment of plaint set aside; trial court to reconsider on merits within six months.

Rayappa S/O Mallappap Heggannavar Vs Kumar. Amit S/O Rayappa… — Partition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.103630/2018 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

RAYAPPA S/O MALLAPPA HEGGANNAVAR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: YARAGATTI-587402, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI RAVI S.BALIKAI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

KUMAR. AMIT S/O RAYAPPA HEGGANNAVAR AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: MAHALINGPUR-587342, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶12

SMT.MAHANANDA W/O RAYAPPA HEGGANNAVAR AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: MAHALINGPUR-587342, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶13

VIJAYLAKSHMI RAYAPPA HEGGANNAVAR, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: yaragatti-587 402, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶14

KUMAR. VISHWANATH, S/O RAYAPPA HEGGANNAVAR, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O YARAGATTI-587 402, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶15

¶16

KUMAR VISHAL,

¶17

KUMAR RAKESH,

¶18

BOTH S/O RAYAPPA HEGGANNAVAR, AGE: 16 AND 14 YEARS RESPECTIVELY, OCC: STUDENTS, BOTH MINORS, R/BY THEIR NEXT FRIEND M/G MOTHER, RESPONDENT NO.3 SMT.VIJAYALAKSHMI R.HEGGANNAVAR.

¶19

SHRI GIRIMALLAPPA, S/O MALLAPPA HEGGANNAVAR, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶20

SHRI LAKKAPPA, S/O MALLAPPA HEGGANNAVAR, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶21

SHRI YALLAPPA S/O MALLAPPA HEGGANNAVAR, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶22

SHRI MAHALINGAPPA, S/O MALLAPPA HEGGANNAVAR, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶23

NOS.7 TO 10 ARE ALL R/O YARAGATTI-587 402, TQ: JAMKHNADI, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶24

... RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI GIRISH A.YADWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; NOTICE TO R3, R4, R7 TO R10 SERVED; R5 AND R6 ARE MINORS, R/BY R3)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.02.2018 PASSED ON I.A.NO.12 IN O.S.NO.223/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANAHATTI, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND DISMISS THE SAID I.A.NO.12, BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI ORDER OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER.

¶27

¶28

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

This petition is directed against the impugned order dated 07.02.2018 passed on I.A.No.12 in O.S.No.223/2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Banahatti (for short, ‘the trial Court’) whereby the said application filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2/ plaintiffs was allowed by the trial Court.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner

¶32

and learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the material on record.

¶33

The material on record indicates that in the aforesaid suit for partition and separate possession filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 against the petitioner/defendant No.1 and other defendants/ respondent Nos.2 to 10 before the trial Court, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed the instant applicationI.A.No.12 seeking amendment of the plaint by

¶34

incorporating certain additional properties. By the

¶35

¶36

impugned order, the trial Court proceeded to allow the said application, aggrieved by which the petitioner is before this Court by way of present petition.

¶37

Though several contentions have been

¶38

urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, having regard to the fact that the impugned order passed by the trial Court allowing I.A.No.12 is a cryptic, unreasoned and non-speaking order without

¶39

any application of mind, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this writ petition setting aside the impugned order and directing the trial Court to reconsider I.A.No.12 afresh on merits after hearing both sides in accordance with law. Having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year 2016, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the application-I.A.No.12 and thereafter

¶40

¶41

the suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶42

Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner/defendant No.1 to file objections to

¶43

I.A.No.12 on the next date of hearing of the suit before the trial Court.

¶44

Subject to the aforesaid directions and

¶45

observations, writ petition stands disposed off.

¶46

SD JUDGE

¶47

CLK

Rayappa S/O Mallappap Heggannavar v. Kumar. Amit S/O Rayappa Heggannavar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rayappa S/O Mallappap Heggannavar v. Kumar. Amit S/O Rayappa Heggannavar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balasaheb S/O. Bharmagouda Patil Vs State of Karnataka

Dr.Ishwaragouda M. Patil Vs the Registrar

Shidramappa S/O Sangappa Anneppanavar Vs the General Manager

Shri. Somappa S/O Shivappa Hosamani Vs the State of Karnataka

Shankar Dolla Gunagi Vs Mangala Ekanath Gunagi

Hanumanthappa S/O.Ningappa Talawar @ Walikar Vs the State of Karnataka