Petitioners claiming to be partners of the respondent-plaintiff firm sought impleadment as defendants in a possession and mesne profits suit. The Trial Court dismissed the application; the High Court upheld it, holding partner disputes must be adjudicated separately and the applicants intended to aid the defendant.
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:16465 WP No. 113339 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT PETITION NO.113339 OF 2015 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR APARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SHIVKUMAR DUNDAPPA HUMBARWADI AGE:MAJOR, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O:714, SAMBHAJI ROAD, R.C.NAGAR, BELAGAVI.
2. PRISM ENTERPRISES,
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 79/80, KHANAPUR ROAD, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, MR. SUBHASH BASUDEV HANJI.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHREEVATSA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O DATED 30.06.2017; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT QUASHING THE ORDER ON IA.NO.11 DATED 09.10.2015, PASSED BY THE 1st ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, COURT BELAGAVI IN O.S.NO.342/2009, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16465 WP No. 113339 of 2015
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)
The present writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 09.10.2015 passed on I.A.No.11 in O.S.No.342/2009 (Annexure-G) passed by the I-Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi1 .
1 Hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”
2 Hereinafter referred to as “CPC”
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16465 WP No. 113339 of 2015
by the petitioners has recorded the following findings:
“10. The applicants are contending that they are the partners of the plaintiff firm and at the same time, they want themselves to be impleaded as defendants. It is to be noted that the plaintiffs have contended that the defendant in the present suit is a tenant under them and the present defendant has already filed its written statement by denying the contention of the plaintiff. Now, the burden is on the plaintiff and the defendant to prove their respective contentions. Under such circumstances, the present applicants has got no business to defend the case on behalf of the defendant firm. It is not the case of the applicant that they are the partners of the defendant firm or they are the tenants in the suit property. Hence, I am of the opinion that the application is sustainable.
11. Since, the scope of this suit is very limited. The Court cannot go beyond the limitation to express its opinion on the internal dispute among the partners of the plaintiff firm. Let us presume for movement that the present applicants are the partners in the plaintiff firm. Under such circumstances also they will become the owners of the suit property along with the present plaintiff. It is
the duty of the defendants to prove that the plaintiff is not the sole landlord and these applications cannot be allowed to help the defendants is disguise. It is admitted fact that the defendant and the present applicants are the brothers and hence, if the present application is allowed it will cause great injustice to the plaintiff. Since, the present suit is for possession and mesne profits, I am of the opinion that the proposed defendants are not proper and necessary parties in the present suit. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the negative.”
(Emphasis supplied)
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16465 WP No. 113339 of 2015
application. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the order of the Trial Court is in any manner erroneous and is liable to be interfered with by this Court in the present writ petition.
In view of the aforementioned, the writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit.
SD/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE
YAN CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioners, claiming to be partners of the plaintiff firm, could be impleaded as defendants in a suit for possession and mesne profits filed by the plaintiff firm.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sachin s/o Vasudev Hanji
Hema w/o Vasudev Hanji
Bhartesh s/o Vasudev Hanji
Standard Engineering (partnership firm, rep. by Shivkumar Dundappa Humbarwadi)
Prism Enterprises (partnership firm, rep. by Subhash Basudev Hanji)
C.M. Poonacha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
