Dismissed

Smt Shilpa v. Smt Gangamma

Karnataka HC8 Aug 2023WP/2605/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Article 227 sought to quash an order dismissing an application to implead proposed defendants who were purchasers of the suit property during the pendency of a partition suit. The High Court observed the excessive delay of over six years before filing the writ and found no cause for interference with the Trial Court's discretion.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition rejected and original impugned order allowed to stand.

Smt Shilpa Vs Smt Gangamma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:27871 WP No. 2605 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 2605 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. SHILPA W/O S PARAMESH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS D/O LATE R B ASHOK R/AT AVARAGERE DAVANGERE CITY -577003.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY MS. THANIMA BEKAL, ADV. FOR SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT. GANGAMMA W/O LATE R B HANUMANTHAPA @ K HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.1720A 3^RD CROSS, 3^RD MAIN VINOBANAGAR, DAVANGERE – 577002.

¶13

SMT. MANJULA W/O LATE R B KOTRESH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.1720A 3^RD CROSS, 3^RD MAIN VINOBANAGAR, DAVANGERE – 577002.

¶14

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA @ LAKSHMIDEVI W/O LATE R B ASHOK AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.1720A 3^RD CROSS, 3^RD MAIN VINOBANAGAR, DAVANGERE – 577002.

¶15

SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O LATE R B RAMESH

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:27871 WP No. 2605 of 2023

¶17

AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT 4^TH MAIN, 3^RD MAIN VINOBANAGAR, DAVANGERE – 577002.

¶18

SRI R B MANJUNATH S/O LATE R BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT 3^RD MAIN, 13^TH CROSS VINOBANAGAR, DAVANGERE – 577002.

¶19

SMT. REKHAMANI D/O LATE R BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT ‘C’ BLOCK D. DEVARAJ URS LAYOUT DAVANGERE – 577002.

¶20

SMT. SUNANDA D/O LATE BASAPPA W/O VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT VIDHYANAGAR HARIHAR – 577601.

¶21

SMT. VIJAYA D/O LATE BASAPPA W/O PRABHAKAR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT VINOBANAGAR DAVANGERE – 577002.

¶22

SMT. VANAJAKSHI D/O LATE BASAPPA W/O BHEEMARAJ AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT VIDHYANAGAR DAVANGERE-577002.

¶23

SMT. JYOTHI W/O MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NEAR HOLI MANTAPA HARIHARA – 577002.

¶24

SRI VASANTHAKUMAR S/O R B HANUMANTHAPPA

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:27871 WP No. 2605 of 2023

¶26

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT VINOBANAGAR DAVANGERE - 577002.

¶27

SMT. BHAGYA W/O MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS VETERENARY DOCTOR R/AT SHAMANUR VILLAGE DAVANGERE TALUK-577002.

¶28

SRI ANAND S/O R B KOTRESH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT VINOBANAGAR DAVANGERE – 577002.

¶29

SMT. ROOPA W/O OMPRAKASH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS LAB TECHNICIAN R/AT DANAPURA POST HOSAPET TALUK-577002.

¶30

SMT. DEEPA W/O SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS MERCHANT OF KIRANI ANGADI R/AT SOMLAPURA POST CHANNAGIRI TALUK-577002.

¶31

SMT. NANDA D/O R B RAMESH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT VINOBANAGAR DAVANGERE -577002.

¶32

SMT. SANDYA D/O R B RAMESH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT VINOBANAGAR DAVANGERE -577002.

¶33

SRI MADHU @ MADHUSUDHAN S/O R B RAMESH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT VINOBANAGAR DAVANGERE - 577002.

¶34

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:27871 WP No. 2605 of 2023

¶35

SRI BASAVARAJ S/O R B KOTRESH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT 3^RD MAIN, 3^RD CROSS VINOBANAGAR DAVANGERE - 577002.

¶36

SRI K VASANTHAKUMAR S/O K HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O KONDAJJI VILLAGE HARIHAR TALUK DAVANGERE DISTRICT PERMANENT R/O NO.25 RAGIMASALAWADA VILLAGE HARAPANAHALLI TALUK DAVANGERE - 577002.

¶37

SMT. YASHODHA S/O R B MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT 3^RD MAIN, 3^RD CROSS VINOBANAGAR, DAVANGERE -577002.

¶38

SMT. POORNIMA B S W/O VISHWANATH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO.1333/15 1^ST CROSS, 1^ST MAIN VIJAYANAGARA LAYOUT KONDAJJI ROAD, DAVANGERE CITY-577002.

¶39

SRI SHIVAKUMAR B K S/O BASAVANNEPPA KARADI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O IRANI VILLAGE AND POST RANEBENNUR TALUK HAVERI DISTRICT- 577002.

¶40

…RESPONDENTS

¶41

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEXURE-A DATED 10/06/2016 MADE ON I.A.NO.25 IN O.S.NO.18/2009 BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DAVANAGERE.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2023:KHC:27871 WP No. 2605 of 2023

¶44

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

¶45

ORDER

¶46

The petitioner/plaintiff in O.S.No.18/2009 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and CJM, Davanagere is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 10.06.2016 rejecting I.A.No.25 filed under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of CPC to implead purchasers of the suit schedule property during pendency of the suit.

¶47

Heard the learned counsel Ms.Thanima Bekal for learned counsel Sri.Hareesh Bhandary.T., for petitioner and perused the writ petition papers.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner/plaintiff filed application I.A.No.25 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead the proposed defendants who are purchasers of the suit schedule property during pendency of the suit. Learned counsel would submit that the suit is one for partition and separate

¶49

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:27871 WP No. 2605 of 2023

¶50

possession and also for a declaration that partition dated 23.02.2006 is not binding and for other consequential reliefs. Learned counsel would submit that the proposed defendants are very much necessary for proper adjudication of the suit and if the application is not allowed, it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Further, learned counsel would point out that I.A.No.25 is dismissed for not taking steps to proposed defendants. It is submitted that only on the ground that steps have not been taken for service of notice, I.A., could not have been rejected. Thus, she submits that Trial Court committed an error and it requires interference by this Court.

¶51

having heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶52

the petitioner and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with impugned order at this belated stage.

¶53

The petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.25 under

¶54

Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of CPC to implead proposed defendants

¶55

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:27871 WP No. 2605 of 2023

¶56

as defendant Nos.21(a) and 21(b) alleging that they are purchasers of item No.17 ‘B’ and item No.9 of ‘A’ schedule properties respectively. Admittedly they are purchasers during pendency of the suit. Further, I.A.No.25 was rejected by the impugned order dated 10.06.2016 whereas the present writ petition is filed on 30.01.2023, after more than 6 years. The petitioner is not diligent in prosecuting the case. For the reason that proposed defendants are pendente lite purchasers and as the impugned order is challenged more than 6 years from the date of order, I decline to interfere with the impugned order.

¶57

Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Smt Shilpa v. Smt Gangamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shilpa v. Smt Gangamma

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 L.Jayaram Vs Smt Sharadamma

Sri B v Harish Kumar Vs Stm Gurramma

B.G.Anantha Padmanabhacharya Vs a L Thimmaiah Char

Sri Pradeep Kumar Vs Mrs Narasamma

Sri G Siddiah Vs Smt Gangalakshamma

Sri. Mohan Kumar G Vs Sri Thulasirama Naik @ Manju