Sri.P.R.Kumar Vs P.R.Nandish

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-C DATED 14-11-2024 PASSED IN O.S.30/2019 BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC. AT PERIYAPATTANA DISMISSING THE APPLICATION, IA NO.9 FILED BY PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10 CPC FOR IMPLEADING PROPOSED DEFENDANTS ALLOW LA NO.9 BY ISSUE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORAN OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION AS THE CASE MAY BE ETC.

¶34

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

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:41696 WP No. 15568 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶38

ORAL ORDER

¶39

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶40

This Court does not find the need or necessity to issue notice to respondents.

¶41

Petitioner is none other than the plaintiff. He instituted the suit for partition and separate possession against the defendants before the trial Court.

¶42

Pursuant to the statement being filed, petitioner/plaintiff filed an application, IA No.9, to implead proposed 47 defendants as they are subsequent purchasers. He had taken steps for some of them. Due to non taking of steps to the defendant Nos.13, 14, 23 and 32, the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for impleadment before the trial Court came to be dismissed and the matter was posted for cross-examination of PW1.

¶43

5 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:41696 WP No. 15568 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that

¶47

he has taken out notice to the other proposed defendants. But for these defendants i.e., defendant Nos.13, 14, 23 and 32, he was unable to be present on that particular day to take steps and hence the Court ought not to have dismissed the entire application except for those who had not been served or taken steps. Nevertheless, the trial Court has dismissed the application in toto and posted the matter for cross-examination of PW1.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the proposed defendants namely defendant Nos. 13, 14, 23 and 32 are subsequent purchasers who have purchased the suit property after the filing of the suit. So they would be proper and necessary parties. The delay in taking the steps to these respondents /Defendants may be condoned and hence, he is before this Court in this petition questioning the said order dismissing IA.No.9 which was filed before the trial Court.

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:41696 WP No. 15568 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Apparently it is seen that the petitioner has

¶52

taken out steps to the other proposed defendants in the said application IA No.9. But for these four proposed defendants, namely D13, D14, 33 and 32, steps were not

¶53

taken due to unforeseen circumstances. Under the circumstances, he seeks to allow this petition seeking 15 days time do the needful to take steps.

¶54

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶55

It appears that the trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the application itself in toto rather than the case as against defendant Nos.13, 14, 23 and 32 for not having taken steps whereas others are being served and represented in accordance with law.

¶56

Under the circumstances, there is a good ground made out by learned counsel for the petitioner to allow this petition by imposing certain conditions. Accordingly, I pass the following order.

¶57

ORDER

¶58

The petition is allowed.

¶59

7 -

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:41696 WP No. 15568 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

The order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, dismissing IA.No.9 is hereby set aside.

¶63

Petitioner/plaintiff is granted 10 days' time to

¶64

take steps with regard to defendant Nos. 13, 14, 23 and 32. If steps are not taken within 10 days i.e., from 28.10.2025, the trial Court shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.

¶65

Ordered accordingly.

¶66

However, the petitioner is saddled with cost of

¶67

Rs.2,500/-, which is a condition precedent to proceed

¶68

further in the case.

¶69

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶70

RCK,List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Sri.P.R.Kumar v. P.R.Nandish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.P.R.Kumar v. P.R.Nandish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr v Ramesh Reddy Vs Ircon Renewable Power Limited

Sri Ramanjinappa Vs Smt S Muniyamma

Sri Manjappa Vs Smt Manjula K S

Smt v Koushlya Vs Shri v Keshavamurthy

Smt Sharadamma Gurubasappa Vs Sri Suresh G

T N Rathnamma Vs Sri M Ramesh