The High Court of Karnataka upheld an interim order impleading family members as necessary parties in a property suit but directed the trial court to expedite disposal within six months.
Writ petition dismissed; Trial Court directed to complete suit within six months by fixing specific timelines for each stage.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6095 WP No. 101185 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 101185 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed byCHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2024.04.08 15:01:55 +0530
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SADIQ N. GOODWALA, ADV. FOR R1 & R3; SRI S.B. PATIL, ADV. FOR R4 & R5; R2-DECEASED, PETITIONER R2-R4 ARE TREATED AS LR’S OF DECEASED R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR DIRECTION OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.01.2023 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, YELBURGA IN O.S.NO.21/2010 PASSED ON I.A.NO.XVI FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10 (2) R/W. SEC.151 OF CPC AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND DISMISS THE I.A. NO.XVI FILED BY THE PROPOSED DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS NO.4 AND 5.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs:
“Issue a writ or direction or order in the nature of writ of certiorari to set-aside the order dated 04.01.2023 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Yelburga in O.S.no.21/2010 passed on I.A.no.XVI filed under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) R/w. Sec.151 of CPC as per Annexure-A and dismiss the I.A. no.XVI filed by the proposed defendants/respondents no.4 and 5.”
opposed, without consideration, impugned order was passed allowing application and directing plaintiff to implead defendant no.2 (e) and (f) as defendants no.3 and 4. Aggrieved by said order, defendants no.1 and 2 (a) to (d) had filed present petition.
that relationship has to be proved during trial, overlooking objections of defendants to contrary. On above grounds, prayed for allowing writ petition.
counsel for plaintiff and Sri S.B.Patil, learned counsel for defendants no.2 (e) and (f) sought to oppose writ petition and justify impugned order.
record.
in O.S no.21/2010 is for declaration of title with possession
and permanent injunction in relation to suit property. Admittedly on death of defendant no.2, plaintiff had filed application for bringing legal heirs on record, leading to impleading defendant no.2(a) to (d). In support of their application, defendants no.2(e) and (f) had produced documents such as Voter-ID, ration card and Aadhaar Card etc. which referred to them as children of defendant no.2.
1 (2020) 11 SCC 598
suit is of year 2010, it would be appropriate to direct trial Court for expedite disposal without granting unnecessary adjournments.
Trial Court is directed to expedite disposal of suit preferably within outer limit of six months, by setting specific timeline for each stage of suit.
Both parties are directed to cooperate for same, without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
All contentions of both parties are kept open and observations and conclusions by trial Court and first appellate Court at time of passing impugned order shall be confined to interim stage and shall not come in way of trial Court passing appropriate judgment on basis of evidence adduced during trial.
Sd/JUDGE
CLK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's order impleading proposed family members as legal representatives in a suit for declaration.
Whether the trial court's direction for expedited disposal of a long-pending suit is appropriate.
Whether the observations of the lower courts on the question of claim should be treated as final or interim.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Varadarajan V/s Kanakavalli and othersReferred¶46
Varadarajan V/s Kanakavalli and others
(2020) 11 SCC 598Explained¶50
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Beerappa, Basavaraj, and Bheemavva
Ramappa
Yellappa
Siddappa
Huligevva
Siddalingappa
Ravi V. Hosmani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
