Partly allowed

Smt Mimi Parthasarathy v. Sri M a Sreenivasan

Karnataka HC21 Nov 2022WP/12477/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed an order allowing the impleadment of the second respondent as a defendant in a civil suit, holding that substantive merits regarding her entitlement were not considered. The matter was remanded for reconsideration with due opportunity for all parties.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order allowing I.A. No. 26 was quashed. The application was restored for reconsideration with due opportunity to all parties.

Smt Mimi Parthasarathy Vs Sri M a Sreenivasan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.12477/2022 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SMT. MIMI PARTHASARATHY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, D/O OF LATE M A PARTHASARTHY R/AT SREENIVASAM NO.20 9^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560 003.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUNDARA RAMAN M V, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

SRI M A SREENIVASAN AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O LATE M A PARTHASARATHY R/AT HAMSINI NO.1 12^TH CROSS, R M V EXTENSION BANGALORE-560 080.

¶12

SMT SREEVALLI SREENIVASAN AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, D/O M A SREENIVASAN R/AT HAMSINI NO.1 12^TH CROSS, R M V EXTENSION BANGALORE-560 080.

¶13

SMT M A VEDAVALLI AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS,

¶14

¶15

W/O LATE M A PARTHASARATHY R/AT SREENIVASAM, NO.20 9^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560 003.

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. G. KRISHNAMURTHY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GAURAV G.K, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.06.2022 PASSED BY THE XLIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-45) AT ANNX-A ON I.A. NO.26.

¶19

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

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This petition is by the third defendant in O.S. No.3294 of 2002 on the file of the XLIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru [for short, ' the civil Court' ]. The petitioner has impugned the civil Court’s order dated 08.06.2022, and the civil Court by this order has allowed the application [ I.A.No.26 ] permitting the second respondent to come on record as the fourth defendant. The civil Court's order in this regard read as under:

¶22

¶23

"Advocate for plaintiff present. Advocate for the impleading party present. Advocate for defendant No.1 to 3 absent. IA No.26 filed by the impleading party on 20.02.2021 and objection also file by the Defendant No.1 to 3 and also filed objection by the plaintiff side already on record. In view of submission by the counsel for the plaintiff IA No.26 may be allowed. IA No.26 filed U/o 1 Rule10(2 )r/w sec. 151 of CPC is hereby allowed. The impleading party namely Srivalli Srinivasan is permitted come on record for proper adjudication of the proceedings."

¶24

Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri G. Krishnamurthy, the learned Senior Counsel for the second respondent, are heard.

¶25

Sri Dhyan Chinnappa submits that the civil Court has allowed the second respondent’s application notwithstanding the fact that a similar application by the first respondent to include her is rejected. Sri G. Krishnamurthy submits that there are multiple suits

¶26

¶27

pending amongst the family members including the suits in O.S. No.5774 of 2005 and O.S. No.7626 of 2015; that the suit in O.S. No.5774 of 2005 is commenced by the first respondent as regards the different immovable properties to which the family members would be entitled and the second respondent is arrayed as one of the defendants in such suit; that the second respondent has commenced suit in O.S. No.7626 of 2015. Sri G. Krishnamurthy submits that the second respondent would therefore be a proper party as effective adjudication could only be possible if the second respondent is also a party to the proceedings.

¶28

However, what remains salient is that the second respondent as of now has not brought on record all circumstances that would justify ready inference that she must be on record as a proper party and significantly, the civil Court has not considered the

¶29

¶30

merits of the second respondent's application in the light of the earlier orders referred to by Sri Dhyan Chinnappa.

¶31

At this stage, it is also canvassed that along with the other suits this suit may have to be taken up for fresh consideration for a complete and effective adjudication with opportunity to the all the family members to have their say. This Court must only record that it should be open to the second respondent and every other party to make necessary application in that regard. If the application is so filed, the same must be considered on its own merits but that cannot be a reason for justifying the present order. Hence the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 08.06.2022 is quashed. The application [ I.A.No.26 ] for leave to the second respondent to come

¶34

¶35

on record as the fourth defendant in the suit is restored for reconsideration with due opportunity to all. Insofar as the common trial of the different suits including the present suit, the parties, subject to all just exceptions, are reserved liberties.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

Smt Mimi Parthasarathy v. Sri M a Sreenivasan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Mimi Parthasarathy v. Sri M a Sreenivasan

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

Smt Manjula Vs Sri G. Muniraju

M/S Laskmi Venkteshwara Constructions Vs Union of India

M/S M v v Satyanarayana Vs Union of India

Thakranaika Vs the President

Ibibo Group Private Limited Vs Economic Transport Organization Ltd.

C. S. Chandrashekar Vs Sri. Krishnappa