Allowed

Sri. Ravi S/O Dhirendra Deshpande v. Dhirendra S/O Jivaji Deshpande

Karnataka HC18 Aug 2021WP/111263/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition challenging the rejection of an application for leave to file a rejoinder. The Court set aside the trial court's order and directed the lower court to admit the rejoinder in the partition suit.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order is set aside and I.A. No. XIV allowing the rejoinder is permitted. Trial Court directed to receive the rejoinder and dispose of the suit within nine months.

Sri. Ravi S/O Dhirendra Deshpande Vs Dhirendra S/O Jivaji… — Partition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

W.P. No. 111263/2017 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI RAVI S/O DHIRENDRA DESHPANDE, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE, R/O HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI.

¶9

PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

DHIRENDRA S/O JIVAJI DESHPANDE, AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC.: RETIRED TAHASILDAR, R/O HANGAL, TQ: & DIST: HAVERI.

¶13

SATISH S/O DHIRENDRA DESHPANDE, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC.: CONTRACTOR, R/O 3^RD CROSS, VIDYANAGAR, HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI.

¶14

RAGHAVENDRA S/O JIVAJI DESHPANDE, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE, R/O TIGADI BUILDING, JAYANAGAR CROSS, DHARWAD.

¶15

SMT. RAJANI, W/O RAGHAVENDRA DESHPANDE, AGE: 68 EARS, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O TIGADI BUILDING, JAYANAGAR CROSS, DHARWAD.

¶16

SMT. SANGEETA, W/O NARAYANRAO KULKARNI,

¶17

¶18

AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WORK, C/O N.P. KULKARNI, H. NO. 37, LIC, 2^ND CROSS, NEAR SHANKAR MATH, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-79.

¶19

SMT. MALATIBAI, W/O DHIRENDRA RAO MAHISHI, AGE: 81 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O MALAMADDI, DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶20

GURURAJ S/O KRISHNARAO HIREKERUR, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC.: BUSINESS, R/O GURUPRASAD COLONY, RANI CHANNAMMA NAGAR, BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶21

MADANMOHAN, S/O KRISHNARAO HIREKERUR, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC.: BUSINESS, R/O CHANNAMMA NAGAR, 2^ND STAGE, NEAR VED MANDIR, BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶22

SMT. BHARATI W/O VITHALRAO UMARJI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O BSNL, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶23

SMT. GEETABAI, W/O DHIRENDRA DESHPANDE, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O HANGAL, TQ: & DIST: HAVERI.

¶24

SMT. SHOBHA @ ASHWINI, W/O ASHOK MAHISHI, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O DHARWAD, TQ: & DIST: DHARWAD.

¶25

SMT. USHA, W/O NARAYANRAO DHARWADKAR, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O DHARWAD, TQ: & DIST: DHARWAD.

¶26

¶27

SMT. VIDYA W/O VEEJENDRARAO RITTI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O DHARWAD, TQ: & DIST: DHARWAD.

¶28

SMT. VANI @ SHRUTI, W/O SHRINIVASRAO JOYISHI, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O BELAGAVI, TQ. & DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶29

SMT. REKHA @ SUREKHA, W/O GOPALRAO SURDESHPANDE, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O KALYAN MUMBAI, STATE: MAHARASHTRA.

¶30

RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI SHRIKANT T. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5, NOTICE TO R1, R6, R8, R9, R10, R11 & R13 ARE SERVED, RESPONDENT NO.3 IS DECEASED REP. BY R4 & R5, RESPONDENT NO. 7 IS DECEASED, PETITION AS AGAINST RESPONDENTS NO. 12, 14 & 15 IS ABATED, NOTICE TO R7 (A & B) IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.11.2017 PASSED BY THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.), HANGAL, ON I.A. NO. 14 IN O.S. NO. 13/2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-G & ETC.

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

ORDER

¶36

This writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 14.11.2017 passed on I.A. No. XIV in O.S. No. 13/2013 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Hanagal, whereby the said application filed by the plaintiff under Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC for permission to file subsequent pleadings by way of rejoinder/ application to the claim/ counter claim putforth by the respondents No.3 to 5/ defendants No.3 to 5, was rejected by the trial Court.

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondents and perused the material on record.

¶38

A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that in the aforesaid suit for partition and separate possession filed by the petitioner against the respondents herein, the respondents No.3 to 5 who are defendants No.3 to 5, have putforth a claim/ counter claim as can be seen from their written statement at Annexure-D. In view of the same, petitioner filed instant application seeking permission to file

¶39

¶40

the written statement/ reply/ rejoinder. Impugned order indicate that the reasons assigned by the trial Court while rejecting the said application, I.A. No. XIV are neither cogent nor valid in as much as a perusal of the proposed rejoinder/ reply filed by the petitioner will clearly indicate that petitioner merely intends to controvert various contentions/ claims/ counter claim putforth by the defendants No.3 to 5, the respondents No.3 to 5 herein by way of rejoinder/ reply, which is clearly permissible in law under the provisions of Order VIII Rule 9 CPC particularly when necessary application in the form of I.A. No. Xiv has been filed by the petitioner seeking leave of the Court to file additional pleadings.

¶41

Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court has occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in the present writ petition.

¶42

In the result, I pass the following order.

¶43

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i. Writ petition is allowed;

¶46

ii. Impugned order dated 14.11.2017 passed on I.A. No. XIV in O.S. No. 13/2013 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Hanagal, is hereby set aside and consequently I.A. No. XIV filed by the petitioner is allowed;

¶47

iii. The trial Court is directed to receive the reply/ rejoinder filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff along with I.A. No. XIV on record.

¶48

iv. Having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year 2013, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit on merits as expeditiously as possible preferably within nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

bvv

Sri. Ravi S/O Dhirendra Deshpande v. Dhirendra S/O Jivaji Deshpande

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Ravi S/O Dhirendra Deshpande v. Dhirendra S/O Jivaji Deshpande

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

Sri T Suresh Vs the Union of India

H B Ravi Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Ms Paniyravara Malli Vs State of Karnataka

Sri H B Gangadharaiah Vs State by Kamakshipalya

Mahalingaiah Vs K Kunduraiah

Smt. Meenakshamma Vs Smt. Yashodamma