Writ petition filed under Article 227 to quash the order rejecting an application to implead the appellants' mother as a party in an appeal challenging a dismissal of a partition suit, holding she is a necessary party despite delay.
Impugned order set aside; application for impleadment allowed subject to cost; appeal directed to be disposed expeditiously.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 94 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
APPELLANTS ARE RESIDING AT NO.80, GANGADHARASWAMY COMPOUND, 1ST CROSS, MUNESHWARA BLOCK, PALACE GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU-03.
(BY SMT NAGARATHNA S K, ADVOCATE) AND:
…PETITIONERS
NC: 2023:KHC:32031 WP No. 94 of 2021
RESIDING AT HUSKUR, DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK-526103.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B THYAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE DODDABALLAPUR ON IA UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) OF CPC IN R.A.NO.10054/2019 DTD.20.2.2020 VIDE ANENXURE-E CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India assailing the order dated 20.02.2020
passed on an interlocutory application filed by the appellants under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in R.A.No.10054/2019 by the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Doddaballapura whereby the said application was rejected.
NC: 2023:KHC:32031 WP No. 94 of 2021
before the Appellate Court.
the petitioners submits that the Trial Court has committed a grave error in dismissing the application filed by the
NC: 2023:KHC:32031 WP No. 94 of 2021
appellants seeking for impleadment of their mother, it is specifically contended by the respondents in their written statement that the mother of the appellants executed a registered release deed dated 16.05.1988 in favour of the respondents, hence there cannot be any partition of such property. Hence, the mother of the appellants is a necessary party in the appeal. It is submitted that the Appellate Court has dismissed the application holding that the application is filed belatedly with an intention to drag on the proceedings. It is also submitted that the alleged registered release deed was obtained by the respondents by fraud, undue influence and coercion. The appellants were minors on the alleged date of release deed. Hence, the mother of the appellants is a necessary party in the appeal to establish their right over the property. She, therefore, seeks to allow the writ petition by permitting the mother of the appellants to come on record in R.A.No.10054/2019.
appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 supports the
NC: 2023:KHC:32031 WP No. 94 of 2021
impugned order of the Appellate Court and submits that the Appellate Court has justified in rejecting the application on the ground of delay as the respondents have taken specific defence in the written statement which was filed wayback on 15.01.2008 i.e. the suit filed by the appellants are not maintainable as the mother of the appellants has executed registered release deed dated 16.05.1988 in favour of the father of respondents and based on the said defence, the appellants have amended their plaint. However, the appellants nor the mother of the appellants have made any attempts to implead her as a party to the suit. Hence, filing of the present application for impleadment of the mother of the appellants in appeal is only with an intention to protract the proceedings and defeat the rights of the respondents.
NC: 2023:KHC:32031 WP No. 94 of 2021
been taken to implead the mother of the appellants. It is also submitted that the appellants have filed appeal in the year 2017. However, the present application is filed on 24.10.2019 and there is a delay of more than two years in filing the present application in the pending appeal. He therefore seeks to dismiss the writ petition.
learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that O.S.No.569/2008 is filed by the appellants seeking partition and separate possession of the schedule properties and the said suit came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants have filed an appeal and in the said appeal, the present application is filed by them to implead their mother. On perusal of the averments made in the accompanying affidavit seeking for impleadement, it is specifically averred that the alleged release deed dated 16.05.1988 stated to be executed by the mother of the appellants is fake and void document and the said fact has
NC: 2023:KHC:32031 WP No. 94 of 2021
come to notice only on filing of the written statement by the defendants on 15.01.2008 and it is averred that all the appellants were minors in the year 1988 and the mother of the appellants being the karta of the joint family, was not having any exclusive right to execute the alleged release deed in respect of the ancestral properties in favour of the respondents. It is also averred that without the presence of the mother of the appellants in appeal, the genuineness of the release deed cannot be decided or adjudicated. Hence, the mother of the appellants is a proper and necessary party to the appeal.
NC: 2023:KHC:32031 WP No. 94 of 2021
their favour executed by the mother of the appellants which is specifically denied by the appellants, for the complete adjudication of the lis, with regard to the document in question, the mother of the appellants is a necessary party to the appeal. The question of adding the parties under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC is one of the judicial discretion vested with the Court. The Court should exercise its jurisdiction judiciously keeping in mind various factors. The adding of party to proceedings should enable the Court effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in appeal. The parties can be added at any stage of the proceedings and adding of parties is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Merely adding the mother of the appellants in the appeal would neither amount to allowing the appeal nor it would cause any prejudice or harm to the respondents. On the other hand, the presence of the mother of the appellants would help the Appellate Court to decide the controversy before it completely.
NC: 2023:KHC:32031 WP No. 94 of 2021
NC: 2023:KHC:32031 WP No. 94 of 2021
appeal as expeditiously as possible taking into account the seniority of the appeal and the pendency.
ORDER
(1) The impugned order dated 20.02.2020 passed on I.A. filed by the appellants under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC in R.A.No.10054/2019 on the file of IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Doddaballapura is set aside.
(2) The application filed by the appellants under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC in R.A.No.10054/2019 is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the respondents by the appellants before the Appellate Court.
(3) The Appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible.
(4) No order as to cost.
Sd/JUDGE
RV
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the mother of the appellants is a necessary party in an appeal regarding partition of ancestral property where an alleged release deed is in dispute.
Whether the delay in filing an application for impleadment should bar the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC.
Whether the Appellate Court committed an error in rejecting the impleadment application solely on grounds of limitation without adjudicating the merits of the release deed dispute.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri L Siddappa & Ors.
Sri Muniraju & Ors.
Vijaykumar A. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
