IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO.24118/2014 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. HANUMANTHAIAH.R S/O L.RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 2. SIDDAGANGAPPA.R S/O LATE L.RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT RAMOHALLI KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE – 560 060 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI B.M.CHANNAMALLIKARJUNA SWAMY FOR SRI S.A.H.RAZVI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. R.JAYARAMAIAH S/O L.RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NO.79, RUDRESWARA NILAYA 2ND MAIN ROAD, 2ND PHASE MANJUNATHA NAGAR RAJAJI NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 010 2. SMT. LALITHAMMA W/O SRI HANUMANTHAIAH D/O LATE LAKKAHANUMAKKA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT ADEPET, TYAMAGONDLU NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 3. SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE KIDALAPPA D/O LATE LAKKAHANUMAKKA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT KOTE BEEDHI TYAMAGONDLU NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 4. SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O SRI CHANDRAPPA D/O LATE LAKKAHANUMAKKA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT BASAVANAGUDI TEMPLE ROAD GULUR, GULUR HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI C.R.SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI THYAGARAJA.S FOR SRI R.PADMANABHA, ADVOCATES FOR R2 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12.03.2014 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE ON IA NO.10 IN R.A.NO.330/2012.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
1. This writ petition is by the appellants in Regular Appeal in RA No.330/2012 pending before the Court of the Principal District Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore and is directed against an interlocutory order dated 12.03.2014 passed by it allowing IA No.10 filed by respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 herein to implead them as additional respondents to the appeal.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. It is relevant to refer to the following reasoning of the Appellate Court in allowing the aforesaid application (IA No.10):
“11. Having regard to the contentions taken by the counsel for the appellants/defendants and the respondent/plaintiff, it is necessary to state that, admittedly, the suit schedule property is the property of late Rangaiah, who had 5 children namely-
1) Lakkahanumakka, 2) Hanumanthaiah R., 3) R.Jayaramaiah, 4) Siddagangappa and 5) Venkatamma and they are the daughters of Lakkahanumakka, who is the eldest daughter of late Rangaiah. It is contended by the counsel for the proposed impleading applicants/respondents No.2 to 4 that, the said Rangaiah having died intestate and without partitioning the property among the members of the family, all the children of late Rangaiah are entitled to equal share in the property belonging to him. It is also contended that, the plaintiff Jayaramaiah being the younger brother of Lakkahanumakka instituted O.S.No.440/2002 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore seeking partition and separate possession over the property belonging to Rangaiah against his brothers Hanumanthaiah and Siddagangappa, but Lakkahanumakka and Venkatamma, the daughters of late Rangaiah were not made as parties to the said suit, which came to be decreed. During the course of cross- examination the plaintiff has admitted that late Rangaiah had 5 children and also admitted that Lakkahanumakka is dead and Venkatamma is residing in her matrimonial house. It is also contended that, though the plaintiff has not made his two sisters as parties, since the suit is for partition and separate possession, as per the amended provision of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, the daughters of Rangaiah are also entitled to equal share over the coparcenary property and suppressing the above facts the plaintiff has filed the above suit and obtained a Decree which is under challenge by the defendants in this appeal. It is contended that their mother Lakkahanumakka died on 30.06.1992 and they being the legal heirs of Lakkahanumakka are entitled to 1/5th share in the property left by late Rangaiah and hence, they are proper and necessary parties to the proceedings.
12. At this juncture it is relevant to refer to a decision reported in ILR 1988 KAR 786 wherein, at Head Note (B) it is held thus:
“(B) Civil Procedure Code 1908 (Central Act No.5 of 1908) – Order 1 Rule 9 Proviso – Notwithstanding proviso Order 1 Rule 10(2) empowers Court to add necessary party.
Held:
Rule 9 of Order 1 of C.P.C., specifically provides that no suit shall be defeated by reason of the mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties and the Court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it. A proviso has been added by Central Act 104 of 1976 to the effect that “nothing in this rule shall apply to non- joinder of a necessary party”. But sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order 1 C.P.C. empowers the Court to direct the plaintiff to add a person to the suit who ought to have joined whether as plaintiff or defendant whose presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.”
Keeping in mind, the ratio laid down in the above decision which aptly applies to the case on hand, I am of the opinion that there are substances in the contention of the counsel for the applicants/proposed impleading respondents 2 to 4 that they are necessary parties to the proceedings and they are required to be permitted to come on record in this appeal, for effective and complete adjudication of the dispute between the parties in O.S.No.440/2002. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the affirmative. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- :Order:
I.A.No.10 filed by the impleading applicants/proposed respondents No.2 to 4 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure is hereby allowed with cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) to be paid by them to the appellants/defendants and the impleading applicants are permitted to come on record as respondents 2 to 4.
The appellants/defendants shall carry out the amendment in the cause title of the Appeal Memo and submit the amended Appeal Memo. ”
3. I have examined the matter in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Bhatia v. Subhash Chander Bhatia [(2018) 2 SCC 87] relating to exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is relevant to refer to the following observation made therein:
“12. …………………………………………………………………… In Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., this Court has held that the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 227 is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within the parameters of its jurisdiction.
………………………………………………………………………………………….”
4. In my opinion, this is not a fit case to warrant interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
5. However, the Appellate Court shall dispose of the aforesaid appeal without being influenced by the observations made in the course of the impugned order dated 12.03.2014.
6. As the appeal is of the year 2012, the Appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously and in any event within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by strictly avoiding unnecessary adjournments.
Petition disposed of.
KSR Sd/- JUDGE