Dismissed¶¶39

Smt. Bharati W/O Chandrakant Patil v. Irappa S/O Gundappa Turai

Civil – Impleadment

Karnataka HC14 Oct 2025WP/101859/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench (Anant Ramanath Hegde J.), WP No. 101859 of 2025 (GM-CPC), decided 14-10-2025: certiorari refused against rejection of impleadment application (I.A.No.2) in specific performance suit O.S. No.43/2024 (Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal); no error found where trial court left applicant's ownership claim open; liberty to establish right in manner known to law; contentions kept open; observations modifiable on motion; rights reserved to pending O.S.No.118/2025. Keywords: impleadment, defendant array, specific performance, certiorari, Articles 226/227, no merit findings.

What did the court decide?

This Court finds no error in the Trial Court's order, which did not decide the petitioner's claim, if any, over the petition property. ¶¶35

Smt. Bharati W/O Chandrakant Patil Vs Irappa S/O… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court's order rejecting the petitioner's application to come on record as a defendant in the suit for specific performance (O.S. No.43/2024) contains any error warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶¶32

Court's answer

This Court finds no error in the Trial Court's order, which did not decide the petitioner's claim, if any, over the petition property.

¶¶35

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner has any right over the property, it can be established as indicated by the Trial Court in its impugned order; accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶¶39

Key takeaways

Dismissal of the petition does not mean the petitioner has no right over the property; such right, if any, must be established in the manner known to law, and any future suit shall be decided without being influenced by the dismissal of the impleadment application.obiter¶¶40
All contentions of the parties are kept open.ratio¶¶41
Since the observations were made without notice to the respondents, aggrieved respondents are permitted to move this Court for modification of the order.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil — Impleadment — Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against order on I.A.No.2 in O.S. No.43/2024 (suit for specific performance) rejecting the petitioner's application to come on record as a defendant — Trial Court noted the applicant produced no records of ownership but left any claim over the property open — High Court (Dharwad Bench) found no error in the order and dismissed the petition — dismissal does not mean the petitioner has no right over the property; any such right must be established in the manner known to law, and a future suit shall be decided uninfluenced by the dismissal — all contentions of the parties kept open — observations made without notice to respondents, who may seek modification — petitioner's right, if any, to be decided in pending O.S.No.118/2025.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13811 WP No. 101859 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 101859 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. BHARATI W/O CHANDRAKANT PATIL, REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER, SRI. BOMMANAGOUDA S/O SHANKARGOUDA PATIL, AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BELAWADI VILLAGE, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-573 113.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. B.S. SANGATI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

CHANDRASHEKARLAXMANKATTIMANI Digitally signed byCHANDRASHEKARLAXMANKATTIMANILocation: HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKADHARWAD BENCHDate: 2025.10.1807:57:05 +0100

¶13

IRAPPA S/O GUNDAPPA TURAI, AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BELAWADI VILLAGE, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-573 113.

¶14

VEERANNA S/O RACHAPPA KARIKATTI, AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. VEERABHADRESHWAR TEMPLE, BELAWADI VILLAGE, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-573 113.

¶15

VISHWANATH S/O RACHAPPA KARIKATTI, AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. VEERABHADRESHWAR TEMPLE,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13811 WP No. 101859 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

BELAWADI VILLAGE, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-573 113.

¶20

SMT. NEELAWWA W/O RACHAPPA KARIKATTI, AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD/AGRICULTURE, R/O. VEERABHADRESHWAR TEMPLE, BELAWADI VILLAGE, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-573 113.

¶21

SMT. VISHALA W/O VINAY WADDIN, AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD/AGRICULTURE, R/O. 4^TH CROSS, VIDYA NAGAR, DHARWAD, NOW AT: NEAR VEERABHADRESHWAR TEMPLE, BELAWADI VILLAGE, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-573 113.

¶22

SMT. VIJAYA W/O SHANKARGOUDA PATIL, AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD/AGRICULTURE, R/O. INDIRA NAGAR, BAILHONGAL, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-591 101.

¶23

… RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. RAWOOT, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/R1)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 IN O.S. NO.43/2024 DATED 17/01/2025 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAILHONGAL, VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW I.A.NO.2.

¶26

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13811 WP No. 101859 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)

¶32

The petitioner has assailed the order passed by the Trial Court which rejected the petitioner's application to come on record as one of the defendants in a suit for specific performance.

¶33

The trial Court has observed that the

¶34

petitioner/applicant has not produced any records to show that he is the owner of the property. At the same time, the Trial Court has also observed that the petitioner if he has any right over the property has to establish it in the manner known to law.

¶35

This being the position, this Court does not find any error in the order passed by the Trial Court which has not decided the claim of the petitioner, if any, over the petition property.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13811 WP No. 101859 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

If the petitioner has any right over the property, same can be established as indicated by the Trial Court in its impugned order. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶40

Merely because the petition is dismissed, it does not mean that the petitioner has no right over the property. The right, if any, has to be established in the manner known to law. If such suit is filed, same shall be decided without being influenced by dismissal of petitioner's application before the trial Court.

¶41

All contents of the parties are kept open.

¶42

Since the observations in this order are made

¶43

without notice to the respondents, the respondents if are aggrieved by the observations made in this order, are permitted to move this Court for modification of the order.

¶44