Allowed

Mr Mohan Raj R v. Sri a Krishna Reddy @ a K Reddy

Karnataka HC5 Jan 2024WP/85/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, legal representative of a deceased respondent in a pending Order IX Rule 13 petition to set aside an ex parte partition decree, challenged rejection of his impleading application. The High Court set aside the order, allowed both impleading applications and directed the trial court to decide the misc. petition within six months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order on I.A. No.11/2023 set aside; both I.A. No.11 and I.A. No.6 allowed; legal representatives of Smt Lakshmamma directed to be brought on record and trial court to dispose of Misc. Petitio

Mr Mohan Raj R Vs Sri a Krishna Reddy @ a K Reddy — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:584 WP No. 85 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 85 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR MOHAN RAJ R LRS OF DECEASED LAKSHMAMMA, S/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO. 587, 17^TH CROSS, INDIRANAGAR II STAGE BENGALURU-560038.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VINAY H.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI A KRISHNA REDDY @ A K REDDY SON OF LATE PATRALA ABBAIAH, REPRESENTED BY ITS LRS BEFORE THE TRAIL COURT

¶15

SMT SAROJAMMA, W/O LATE A. KRISHNA REDDY @ A.K REDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶16

SMT VANITHA D/O LATE A KRISHNA REDDY

¶17

@ A.K REDDY,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:584 WP No. 85 of 2024

¶20

W/O CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶21

SMT SAVITHA D/O LATE A KRISHNA REDDY @ A.K REDDY, W/O JAYACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶22

SRI VIJAYKUMAR S/O LATE A KRISHNA REDDY @ A.K REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶23

SRI RAVIKUMAR S/O LATE A KRISHNA REDDY @ A.K REDDY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶24

ALL ARE R/AT NO. 22 NEW POLICE STATION ROAD, P.A STREET, 3^RD CROSS, KRISHNARAJAPURAM, BANGALORE-560036.

¶25

SMT A NARAYANAMMA DECEASED BY HER LRS

¶26

SMT K REVATHI, D/O AND LATE H.M KRISHNA AND LATE NARAYANAMMA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

¶27

SMT K HEMAVATHI D/O AND LATE H.M KRISHNA AND LATE NARAYANAMMA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:584 WP No. 85 of 2024

¶30

8. SRI K RAMESH

¶31

S/O AND LATE H.M KRISHNA AND LATE NARAYANAMMA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT 679/1 INDIRANGAR, 1^ST STAGE, 9^TH A MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560038.

¶32

SRI K SURESH D/O AND LATE H.M KRISHNA AND LATE NARAYANAMMA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶33

R/AT 679/1 INDIRANAGAR, 1^ST STAGE, 9^TH A MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560038.

¶34

PRESENTLY RESIDES AND WORKING AT NO. 635, SOUTH ELLIS STREET APT NO. 2106 CHANDLER ARIZONA 85224 USA-85224.

¶35

SRI VEERASWAMY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, S/O LATE PATRALAABBAIAH,

¶36

RESIDING AT NO. 679/1, 9^TH MAIN ROAD, INDIRANAGAR 1^ST STAGE SYNDICATE BANK ROAD BENGALURU – 560 038.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:584 WP No. 85 of 2024

¶39

SMT A LAKSHMAMMA W/O NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT B NARAYANAPURA, BANGALORE-560016.

¶40

SRI SEENAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O SRI MUNIYAPPA, R/AT KAMAVARI STREET, HOSAKOTE TOWN, BENGALURU DISTRICT-562114.

¶41

SRI KODANDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O SRI. MUNIYAPPA, R/AT KAMAVARI STREET, HOSAKOTE TOWN, BENGALURU DISTRICT-562114.

¶42

…RESPONDENTS

¶43

(BY SRI. NAGA REDDY V.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; NOTICE TO R6 TO R13 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 05.01.2024)

¶44

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-D ORDER DATED 20/12/2023 ON I.A. NO. 11/2023 PASSED IN MISC. PETITION NO. 25030/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE LXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT MAYOHALL UNIT AT BENGALURU.

¶45

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

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:584 WP No. 85 of 2024

¶48

ORDER

¶49

This petition is directed against the impugned order dated 20.12.2023 passed on I.A. No.11/2023 in Misc. Petition No.25030/2013 on the file of the LXXIII Additional City Civil Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru [for short, ‘the trial Court’] whereby the said application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of CPC was rejected by the trial Court.

¶50

The material on record discloses that the respondent Nos.1-5 are the legal representatives of one Sri Krishna Reddy who has filed the aforesaid Miscellaneous Petition No.25030/2013 seeking setting aside of the ex parte Judgment and decree dated 24.07.2004 passed in O.S. No.11149/1994 in which said Sri Krishna Reddy was arrayed as Defendant No.2 in a suit for partition and separate possession filed by Smt. Narayanamma against Sri. Krishna Reddy and others. The petitioner herein is the legal representative of Smt. Lakshmamma who was arrayed as Defendant No.3 in the suit. A perusal of the Judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.11149/1994

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:584 WP No. 85 of 2024

¶53

dated 24.07.2004 will indicate that while Sri Krishna Reddy, the Defendant No.2 whose legal representatives are the respondent Nos.1-5 were placed ex parte, the remaining defendants including Smt. Lakshmamma-Defendant No.3 contested the suit and the same culminated in the said Judgment and decree in which Smt. Lakshmamma was also declared to be entitled to a share in the suit schedule property.

¶54

Aggrieved by the aforesaid ex parte Judgment and decree passed against him, said Krishna Reddy has filed the aforesaid Miscellaneous Petition under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC seeking setting aside of the ex parte Judgment and decree. The cause title to said Miscellaneous Petition will indicate that Smt. Lakshmamma whose legal representative is petitioner herein has been arrayed as Respondent No.3 to the Miscellaneous Petition. During the pendency of said Miscellaneous Petition, aforesaid Smt. Lakshmamma having expired, the respondent Nos.1-5/Miscellaneous petitioners filed the application [I.A. No.6] under Order XXII Rule 4 of CPC on

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:584 WP No. 85 of 2024

¶57

15.07.2022 to bring her legal representatives i.e., the petitioners herein on record.

¶58

It is relevant to state that the petitioner herein, Mohan Raj R, one of the legal representatives of Smt. Lakshmamma, the respondent No.3 referred to supra. The aforesaid application [I.A. No.6] was filed by the respondent Nos.1-5 in Miscellaneous Petition to bring on record all the legal representatives of Smt. Lakshmamma including the petitioner herein. During the pendency of the said application, the petitioner herein filed the instant application [I.A. No.11] to come on record as additional respondent to the said Miscellaneous Petition. The said application having been opposed by the respondent Nos.1-5, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application, aggrieved by which the petitioner is before this Court by way of present petition.

¶59

A perusal of the material on record clearly indicate that even according to the respondent Nos.1-5, the petitioner herein is none other than son of Smt.

¶60

¶61

NC: 2024:KHC:584 WP No. 85 of 2024

¶62

Lakshmamma and is sought to be brought on record as her legal representative as defendants-respondent Nos.1-5 who do not dispute the relationship of the petitioner with the deceased Smt. Lakshmamma, the trial Court clearly fell in error in rejecting the application I.A. No.11 especially when I.A. No.6 filed by the respondent Nos.1-5 was pending adjudication. At any rate, both I.A. No.11 filed by the petitioner and I.A. No.6 filed by the respondent Nos.1-5 deserve to be allowed and the petitioner and the other legal representatives of the respondents to be brought on record as her legal representatives in the Miscellaneous Petition with direction to the trial Court to proceed further in the matter. In the result, the following:

¶63

ORDER

¶64

[a] The petition is hereby allowed.

¶65

[b] The impugned order dated 20.12.2023 on I.A. No.11/2023 in Misc. Petition No.25030/2013

¶66

on the file of the LXXIII Additional City Civil Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru is set aside.

¶67

Both the applications in I.A. No.11 filed by the

¶68

¶69

NC: 2024:KHC:584 WP No. 85 of 2024

¶70

petitioner and I.A. No.6 filed by the respondent

¶71

Nos.1-5 are allowed and the petitioner and other legal representatives of Smt. Lakshmamma, the respondent No.3 in Miscellaneous Petition No.25030/2013 are directed to be brought on record as her legal representatives.

¶72

[c] The trial Court is directed to bring on record the legal representatives of Smt. Lakshmamma as indicated in I.A. No.6 and to proceed further in the matter.

¶73

[d] The trial Court is directed to dispose of Miscellaneous Petition No.25030/2013 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶74

SD/JUDGE

¶75

AN/-

Mr Mohan Raj R v. Sri a Krishna Reddy @ a K Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Mohan Raj R v. Sri a Krishna Reddy @ a K Reddy

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. Nanjappa Vs Smt. Girijamma

Smt. Girijamma, Vs Sri. Puttarudraiah

Mr Deepak Kothari Vs M/S Smart Owner Services India Private Limited

Sri Ramakrishna Vs Smt M Lakshmi

Sri Chandrappa Vs Sri B R Krishna Murthy

D M Krishnappa Vs D M Ashwathaiah