Sri. Syed Hameed Vs Sri Ramesh

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.11.2020 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAMANAGARA ON I.A.NO.16 IN O.S.NO.234/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-A & ETC.

¶18

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

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:27323 W.P. No.15221/2020

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed seeking for the following relief:

¶25

"Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 25.11.2020 passed by the court of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara on IA No.16 in O.S.No.234/2014 vide Annexure-A."

¶26

Heard.

¶27

3. Sri.G.B.Nandish Gowda, learned counsel appearing

¶28

for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale executed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant No.2 died and his legal heirs i.e. his wife and one son were brought on record. It is submitted that during the cross-examination of DW-2, it was brought to the knowledge of the petitioner-plaintiff that the deceased defendant No.2 has two more children. Hence, an application came to be filed to implead them as parties to the suit. However, the Trial Court, solely on the ground that the application is filed belatedly when the matter is posted for judgment, rejected the same with costs. It is submitted that the petitioner-plaintiff did not have

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:27323 W.P. No.15221/2020

¶30

3 -

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

any knowledge with regard to the other legal heirs of the defendant No.2. Hence, he could not bring the proposed defendants on record. It is submitted that already the wife and one son of the deceased defendant No.2 is on record and no prejudice would be caused to the proposed defendants. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of BILIGIRI NAIKA Vs. BILIGIRINAIKA @ SUBHANAIKA AND ANR.¹

¶33

He seeks to allow the petition.

¶34

Per contra , Sri.Ramachandra R.Naik, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supports the impugned order of the Trial Court and submits that there is an enormous delay in filing the application for impleadment. The said application was filed when the matter was posted for judgment. It is submitted that the cross-examination of DW-2 was held on 26.02.2018. However, the application for impleadment was filed on 11.09.2020, which has been rightly rejected by the Trial Court. He seeks to dismiss the petition.

¶35

1 W.P.No.7376/2008 decided on 02.07.10

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:27323 W.P. No.15221/2020

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on both the sides.

¶40

The undisputed facts between the parties are that the petitioner has filed O.S.No.234/2014 seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale alleged to have been executed by defendants. The material on record indicates that the defendant No.2 died during the pendency of the said suit. The petitioner filed an application seeking to bring legal heirs of the defendant No.2 on record in the pending suit, which came to be allowed and the wife and one son of the defendant No.2 were brought on record. The application for impleadment i.e. I.A.No.16 filed by the petitioner indicates that the defendant No.2 had two more children which came to the knowledge of the petitioner only during the cross-examination of DW-2. Hence, he filed an application for impleadment. In my considered view, the Trial Court has committed a grave error in rejecting the application solely on the ground that the application is filed belatedly. This Court, in the case of

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:27323 W.P. No.15221/2020

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

BILIGIRI NAIKA referred supra, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held at paragraph 10 as under:

¶45

"10. The feature that distinguishes this case from the facts of Arjun Singh and Rabiya Bi Kassim's case (supra) is that in the reported cases, the I.A.s were filed when the matter was reserved for judgment. In the instant case, thought the matter was posted for judgment once, it was reopened not at the instance of any party, but by the Court suo-motu. On the reopening of the case by the Trial Court and in the course of further hearing, the three I.A.s are filed. Thus, there was no legal impediment in filing the three I.A.s."

¶46

Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid down by this Court following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the considered view that no prejudice or injustice would be caused to the defendants if the proposed defendants are brought on record. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that the Presiding Officer is transferred and the matter is now pending for hearing. Taking note of the same, I am of the considered view that the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

¶47

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

¶48

parties that the suit is of the year 2014 and they seek for a direction to the Trial Court for early disposal of the suit. I am

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:27323 W.P. No.15221/2020

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

of the considered view that no positive direction can be issued to the Trial Court to dispose of the suit in a time bound manner. However, the Trial Court can take note of the pendency of the cases before it and considering the case management flow, shall take appropriate steps to dispose of the suit in accordance with law.

¶52

For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass

¶53

the following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶56

(ii) The impugned order dated 25.11.2020 passed on I.A.No.16 in O.S.No.234/2014 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramangara, is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.16 filed by the petitionerplaintiff under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is allowed.

¶57

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶58

RV

¶59

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Sri. Syed Hameed v. Sri Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Syed Hameed v. Sri Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Ananda Vs Sri. C H Honnegowda

Smt.Vinodamma Vs Smt. Revannamma

Doreswamy Vs Panchayath Development Officer

Basavaraju Vs Eshwarappa

Sri Shankaregowda Vs Sri Channegowda

Mr. Shanthilal Vs Mr. Arvind Kumar Bhorilal