IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT W.P.No.25850 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN SMT.HONNAMMA, W/O LATE GANGANNA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, RESIDING AT KALLANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, HUTHRIDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572130. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.N.NANJUNDA SWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI.K.PUTTASWAMY, S/O LATE CHENNIGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.519, 11TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BENGALURU – 560086.
2. SRI.B.G.RAMGASWAMY, S/O LATE GANGANNA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT KALLANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, HUTHRIDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572130. ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE/QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.06.2018, PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, KUNIGAL, ON INTERIM APPLICATION, FILED UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) OF CPC IN O.S.NO.401/2013, AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND DISMISS THE SAID APPLICATION AT ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The application for impleadment having been allowed by the impugned order although belatedly, cannot otherwise be found fault with since even going by the pleadings, more particularly Para 2 of the Written Statement, the petitioner happens to be most necessary party for adjudication; the said paragraph No.2 reads as under:
“2. It is submitted that this defendant is not the owner of the suit schedule property. One Smt, Honnamma, the mother of this defendant is the absolute owner and in possession of the property bearing SY.No.59/1A, measuring 22 ½ Guntas of land situated Kallanayanakahalli Village, Huthridurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk it includes suit schedule property, which is morefully described herein under mentioned below schedule and herein after referred as written statement schedule property.”
2. The 1st defendant who has taken up these pleadings in the Written Statement is none other than the son of the petitioner himself; the impleading application is moved at a belated stage per se, is not sufficient ground to grant indulgence in the matter since the court below has exercised its discretion in favouring the impleading application; the Apex Court in the case of Trimbak Gangadhar Telang V/s Ramchandra Ganesh Bidhe, AIR 1977 SC 1222 has held that ordinarily, the orders passed in discretion do not merit deeper examination at the hands of the writ court.
Therefore, the Writ Petition is rejected in limine, all contentions having been kept open.
Sd/- JUDGE cbc