Allowed

Bhadraiah v. Rangaswamy

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2023WP/31196/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition under Article 227 to quash an order dismissing an application for impleadment. The Court held that since the plaintiffs initiated revenue proceedings impleading the respondents, the Trial Court erred in not allowing the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; order dated 13.03.2018 set aside; application for impleadment allowed; petitioner to be added as defendant Nos. 4 to 6 in O.S. No.47/2015.

Bhadraiah Vs Rangaswamy — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:34586 WP No. 31196 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 31196 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

BHADRAIAH S/O NINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

¶7

K.H. GANGANNA S/O HUCHAPPA @ THOTADA HUCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

¶8

K.H. RAMESH S/O HUCHAPPA @ THOTADA HUCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶9

Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR M S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

ALL ARE R/AT KURUBARAHALLI BYALA VILLAGE, DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572220.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. LOKEHA D.K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HARIPRASAD M.B., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

RANGASWAMY S/O LATE RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

¶15

CHANDRAIAH S/O LATE RAMANNA,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:34586 WP No. 31196 of 2018

¶18

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶19

SHIVANNA S/O LATE LAKSHMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶20

JAYALAKSHMAMMA W/O CHIKKAMUDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶21

RUDRAIAH S/O HONNAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶22

ESWARAIAH S/O GANGADHARAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶23

ALL ARE THE RESIDENT OF KURUBARAHALLI BYALA VILLAGE, DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 220.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. SHREEDEEP, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NAGAIAH & VINAY G. ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3; SRI. M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN O.S.NO.47/2015 ON IA NO.VI DATED 13.03.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TURUVEKERE VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND ETC.

¶27

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:34586 WP No. 31196 of 2018

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶32

In this writ petition, petitioners are assailing the order dated 03.03.2018 in O.S. No.47/2015 on the file of learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Turuvekere, dismissing the application filed by the petitioners herein, under Order I Rule 10 of CPC.

¶33

Having taken note of the factual aspects and the material on record, the plaintiffs have filed O.S. No.47/2015, seeking relief of declaration with

¶34

consequential relief of possession. The plaintiffs have preferred Revenue proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, Tiptur, in R.A. No.36/2012-13 under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and got the petitioners herein / impleading applicants as the respondents in the said case. In that view of the matter, since it is a suit for declaration with consequential relief of recovery of possession and as the plaintiffs

¶35

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:34586 WP No. 31196 of 2018

¶36

themselves have brought the impleading applicants as respondents before the revenue proceedings, I am of the view that, the Trial Court has committed an error in not allowing the application filed by the petitioners herein under Order I Rule 10 of CPC.

¶37

Accordingly, order dated 13.03.2018 produced as Annexure-M to the writ petition is hereby set aside and the application in I.A. VI filed by the petitioners before the Trial Court under Order I Rule 10 of CPC is allowed. Consequently, the Trial Court is directed to permit the petitioners herein to be shown as defendant Nos.4 to 6 in O.S. No.47/2015.

¶38

The writ petition is accordingly allowed.

¶39

SD/JUDGE

¶40

sac

¶41

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Bhadraiah v. Rangaswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhadraiah v. Rangaswamy

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. Neelamma and Ors. Vs B. Basawaraj Deceased by Lrs and Ors.

Bashasab and Ors. Vs the Director and Ors.

Hanmantha S/O Basappa Narasareddy Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Sri M Chandrasekhar Vs Sri Malleshappa @ P.C. Malleshappa

M. a. Rahamathi Ali Vs Nizam Sab

P. R. Satish Babu Vs P. R. Srinivasulu