Dismissed

Smt. Yallubai W/O. Veersingh @ Earasingh v. Puraji Yamanappa S/O. Hanamantappa

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2023WP/103918/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court benchdismissed a writ petition challenging orders rejecting an application to implead a necessary party and an application to withdraw suit with liberty. Court found inordinate delay and valid reasons for rejection.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; orders of the Additional Civil Judge regarding rejection of I.A. No. XIX and XXI were set aside in favor of the respondent.

Smt. Yallubai W/O. Veersingh @ Earasingh Vs Puraji… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14520 WP No. 103918 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 103918 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. YALLUBAI W/O. VEERSINGH @ EARASINGH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HATCHOLLI, TQ: SIRAGUPPA, DISTRICT: BALLARI-583121.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. S.G. KADADAKATTI & SRI. LINGESH V. KATTEMANI, ADVOCATES)

¶10

AND:

¶11

PUJARI YAMANAPPA S/O. HANAMANTAPPA, AGE: ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: PVT. GUMASTA, RAGHAVENDRA TRADING CO., KARATAGI, R/O. NEAR DR.JAYANT CLINIC, BUDUGUMPA ROAD, KARATAGI, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DISTRICT: KOPPAL-583229.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

ROHAN HADIMANI T Digitally signed by ROHAN HADIMANI T

¶14

(BY SRI. ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.02.2021 PASSED ON I.A.NO.XIX AND THE ORDER DATED 17.09.2021 ON I.A.NO.XXI IN O.S.NO.150/2002 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GANGAVATHI VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND J RESPECTIVELY BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14520 WP No. 103918 of 2021

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A. No.IXX and I.A. No.XXI in O.S. No.150/2002 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Gangavathi, the present writ petition is filed by the plaintiff / applicant therein.

¶21

The plaintiff has filed the aforementioned suit for declaration and possession of the suit schedule property. The O.S. was filed in the year 2002 and the written statement is filed in the year 2003, wherein a specific contention was taken that the suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties, as one Veereshappa, brother

¶22

of the defendant is also in joint possession of the suit property and based on the said pleadings in the written statement, an additional issue No.3 was framed as per order in I.A. No.3 dated 10.11.2005 as to whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Inspite of framing the said issue in the year 2005 itself, the plaintiff did not take any steps to implead the said Veereshappa. After completion of the recording of evidence on both sides

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14520 WP No. 103918 of 2021

¶24

and when the case was posted for arguments, the plaintiff filed I.A. No.IXX for impleading the said Veereshappa. The said application has been rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that there is an inordinate delay in filing the said application and it is barred by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, where the plaintiff was required to make such an application within three years from the date of framing of the additional issue. After rejection of the said application, the petitioner herein filed I.A. No.XXI, wherein he sought to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The said application was filed on the ground that by mistake Veereshappa had not been made a party to the proceedings and now he intends to file a fresh suit by making the said Veereshappa party to the proceedings. The Trial Court has rejected the said application on the ground that reserving the liberty to the plaintiff therein, to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action would amount to condoning the delay. Aggrieved by the said orders passed on I.A. No.IXX and I.A. No.XXI, the present writ petition is filed.

¶25

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14520 WP No. 103918 of 2021

¶26

The case of the petitioner is that the said

¶27

Veereshappa is just and necessary party to the said dispute to be decided comprehensively and hence, either the order passed by the Trial Court in respect of I.A. No.IXX be set aside and the said application be allowed or atleast permit the petitioner to withdraw the present suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action.

¶28

Admittedly, the additional issue as of nonjoinder of necessary parties was framed way back in the year 2003. The plaintiff did not take any action in respect of the same. He made an application as belatedly as in the year 2015 to implead the said Veereshappa. The Trial Court has rightly rejected the contention of the petitioner that the said application is barred by time and also the application is made with a view to protract the proceedings. Similarly, if the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the suit and file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, it amounts to condoning the delay as against the

¶29

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14520 WP No. 103918 of 2021

¶30

said Veereshappa and the Trial Court has rightly rejected

¶31

I.A. No.XXI filed by the petitioner.

¶32

I do not see any error in the orders passed by

¶33

the Trial Court.

¶34

For the said reasons, the writ petition is hereby

¶35

dismissed.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

RSH / Ct-mck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Smt. Yallubai W/O. Veersingh @ Earasingh v. Puraji Yamanappa S/O. Hanamantappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Yallubai W/O. Veersingh @ Earasingh v. Puraji Yamanappa S/O. Hanamantappa

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.Qamarjahan W/O Abdulsattar Belgaum Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Renuka Traders Vs the Director

M/S Laxmi Food Industry Vs the Regional Manager

Smt. Nandini W/O. Venkata Reddy Vs the Union of India

K. Thippeswami S/O Maliyappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Laxmibai W/O Nagappa Pujeri Vs Sri Krishnappa Bhimappa Madar