Dismissed¶38

K Vijaya Bhaskar Rao S/O Late Kantanmaneni Subba Rao v. Smt B Saroja W/O Late Hanumaiai

Civil Procedure – Legal representative – Order XXII Rule 3 CPC

Karnataka HC10 Oct 2025WP/106288/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench; WP No.106288 of 2025 (GM-CPC); Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde; order dated 18.06.2025 in O.S. No.36/2018 (Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete); Order XXII Rule 3 CPC; legal representative of deceased plaintiff; Will dated 19.07.2017; execution of Will proved without notice to class-I heirs; certiorari; writ petition dismissed; plaintiff at liberty to prove Will in suit.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed with the clarification that the plaintiff is at liberty to establish his claim under the Will dated 19.07.2017 in the manner known to law. ¶38

K Vijaya Bhaskar Rao S/O Late Kantanmaneni Subba… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; writ petition dismissed with the clarification that the plaintiff is at liberty to establish his claim under the Will dated 19.07.2017 in the manner known to law.

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 18.06.2025 of the Principal Civil Judge, Hosapete in O.S. No.36/2018 rejecting plaintiff No.2's application under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC warrants interference in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

The rejection of the application under Order XXII Rule 3 of CPC does not come in the way of plaintiff No.2 in prosecuting the suit, and accordingly the Court declined to interfere with the impugned order.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

The dismissal of the writ petition shall not be construed as any opinion on the execution or otherwise of the alleged Will dated 19.07.2017; the plaintiff remains at liberty to establish his claim under that Will in the manner known to law.

¶46

Key takeaways

The trial Court's finding that execution of the alleged Will was proved was recorded without notice to the remaining class-I heirs of deceased plaintiff No.1, and that course should not have been adopted; since those heirs are not parties, the Court declined to express any opinion on their say.obiter¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Procedure — Legal representative — Order XXII Rule 3 CPC — Writ petition under Articles 226/227 against rejection of plaintiff No.2's application to come on record as legal representative of deceased plaintiff No.1 in O.S. No.36/2018: HELD, rejection of the Order XXII Rule 3 application does not preclude plaintiff No.2 from prosecuting the suit; no interference warranted and the petition is dismissed. The trial Court had held execution of the Will dated 19.07.2017 proved after inquiry, but that finding was recorded without notice to the remaining class-I heirs of the deceased, a course the High Court observed should not have been adopted; the dismissal is not to be construed as any opinion on the execution or otherwise of the Will, and the plaintiff is at liberty to establish his claim under the Will in the manner known to law.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13728 WP No. 106288 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

¶5

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.106288 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:

¶9

K. VIJAYA BHASKAR RAO S/O LATE KANTAMANENI SUBBA RAO, AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. SHANTI NAGAR CAMP, NELLUDI POST, BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶10

… PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. A. VEERANNA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT. B. SAROJA W/O LATE HANUMAIAH, AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. 12^TH WARD, KOTTALA ROAD, KAMPLI, HOSAPETE TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT.

¶14

CHANDRASHEKARLAXMANKATTIMANI Digitally signed byCHANDRASHEKARLAXMANKATTIMANILocation: HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKADHARWAD BENCHDate: 2025.10.1510:05:32 +0100

¶15

B. ANIL KUMAR S/O LATE HANUMAIAH, AGE. 29 YEARS, R/O. 12^TH WARD, KOTTALA ROAD, KAMPLI, HOSAPETE TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT.

¶16

… RESPONDENTS

¶17

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 DATED 18/06/2025 ON I.A. NO.5 IN O.S. NO.36/2018 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAPETE, PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-G.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13728 WP No. 106288 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

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

¶24

This petition is filed against the order dated 18.06.2025 in O.S.No.36/2018, on the file of Principal Civil Judge, Hosapete.

¶25

In terms of the said order, application filed by plaintiff No.2 under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is rejected.

¶26

Plaintiff No.1 is the mother of plaintiff No.2. Plaintiff No.1 died during the pendency of the suit. Plaintiff No.2 wanted to come on record as legal representative of deceased plaintiff No.1 on the basis of the Will dated 19.07.2017 said to have been executed by plaintiff No.1 in favour of plaintiff No.2.

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13728 WP No. 106288 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

The defendants, who are not the family members, opposed the said application.

¶30

The trial Court held inquiry on the said application as well as on execution of the alleged Will. The Trial Court has held that execution of Will is proved. However, the application is dismissed on the premise that plaintiff No.2 is already on record and he can persecute this suit without coming on record as the legal representative of deceased plaintiff No.1.

¶31

It is required to be noticed that the finding relating to the alleged Will is recorded without notice to the remaining class-I heirs of deceased plaintiff No.1, that course should not have been adopted.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff No.2 would submit that the remaining legal heirs are already separated in the partition and they do not

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13728 WP No. 106288 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

have any objection to the execution of Will by plaintiff No.1.

¶36

The question whether they have any objection or not, can be decided only in the presence of the remaining legal representative of deceased plaintiff No.1. Since they are not parties to the suit before the trial Court or before this Court, this Court does not intend to express any opinion on the say of the legal representative of deceased plaintiff No.1, who are not parties before this Court.

¶37