IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO.6253/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MAYAMMA D/O. LATE MAYANNA @ VEERANNA W/O. LATE LAKSHMANA AGED 74 YEARS R/O. HEGGADAGERE VILLAGE BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN CODE-562 159.
2. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA D/O. LATE MAYANNA @ VEERANNA W/O. SRI. KADAPPA AGED 66 YEARS R/O. HEGGADAGERE VILLAGE BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN CODE-562 159.
3. SMT. LALITHA D/O. LATE MAYANNA @ VEERANNA W/O. SRI RAJANNA AGED 62 YEARS R/O. CHANNEGOWDANA DODDI KASABA HOBLI MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MADHUKAR NADIG, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI. L.V. MAYANNA @ SRI. MAHENDRA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/O. LAKSHMIPURA VILLAGE KOOTGAL HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN CODE-562 159.
2. SMT. L.V. SARVAMANGALA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS W/O. SRI. SRINIVASA R/O. NO.20, BYTARAYANAPURA NEW EXTENSION ”F” CROSS ROAD, 5TH MAIN BENGALURU-560 092.
SMT. S. MANASA W/O SRI. C.L. PUTTA SWAMY, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS, 3. SRI.C.L.PUTTA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O LATE LINGE GOWDA RESIDING AT CHIKKALABALLU VILLAGE, KOOTGAL POST, HAROHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 117.
4. KUMARI CHANDANA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS D/O C.L.PUTTA SWAMY 5. KUMARI JHANAVI AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS D/O C.L.PUTTA SWAMY R3 TO R5 RESIDING AT CHIKKALABALLU VILLAGE, KOOTGAL POST, HAROHALLI HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 117.
6. SRI.K. RAMAKANTHA BHAT S/O SRI. K.NARASIMHA BHAT, R/AT NO.545, 1ST FLOOR, 7TH MAIN ROAD, HANUMANTHANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 019.
7. KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD B.S.K.BRANCH, 50 FEET MAIN ROAD, SRINAGARA, BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PIN-560 050. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.V. BADRINATH, ADV. FOR C/R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.01.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.6795/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, AT BENGALURU IN CCH-15 ON IA NO.8 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) OF READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE [ANNEXURE-E] THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The learned counsel for petitioners Sri. Madhukar Nadig waives of notice for respondent No.1.
2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 30.01.2019 passed on IA-8 in O.S.No.6795/2004 on the file of Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (‘trial court’, for short) whereby the application filed by the petitioners under order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC has been rejected.
3. Respondent No.1 has filed a suit in O.S.No.6795/2004 before the trial court against the respondent Nos.2 to 7 seeking the relief of declaration that the plaintiff is the full and absolute owner of the suit property as he derived right, title and interest over the suit property by virtue of Will executed by his father on 16.01.1995 and for other consequential reliefs. In the said proceedings IA No.8 has been filed by the petitioners herein seeking impleadment as defendants, contending that the suit property is their joint family property and they are the sisters of the plaintiff and 1st defendant. Trial Court considering the material on record, dismissed the said application. Hence, this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the petitioners were oblivious of the suit in O.S.No.6795/2004 filed by respondent No.1 herein. It is only in the suit proceedings of O.S.No.897/2015 filed by the petitioners seeking for partition, on the written statements filed by the respondent No.1 herein, it has come to their knowledge that the present suit is pending consideration wherein the respondent No.1 has intentionally not arrayed these petitioners as parties to the proceedings. Learned counsel submits that these petitioners are necessary and proper parties for necessary adjudication of the dispute between the parties.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 justifying the impugned order would submit that petitioners are not the necessary and proper parties for effective adjudication of the dispute between the parties. It is at the fag end of the suit proceedings, they have come with the IA No.8 only with an intention to protract the proceedings. Considering the same, the trial court has dismissed the application. Hence, no interference is called for.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the materials on record.
7. It is not in dispute that after filing of the written statement in O.S.No.897/2015, it is well within the knowledge of the petitioners herein about the pendency of O.S.No.6795/2004. The said written statement was filed on 05.10.2015. However, the present application is filed by the petitioners after the conclusion of the evidence and at the time of arguments in the month of January 2019. This factual matrix of the case indicates that the petitioners were not diligent in filing the application-IA.No.8 well within the reasonable time after pendency of the O.S.No.6795/2004 has come to their knowledge. O.S.No.897/2015 being filed by the petitioners seeking for partition, they are not the necessary and proper parties for the adjudication of the dispute between the parties in the present suit as observed by the trial Court. No jurisdictional error is found in the order.
In view of the above, writ petition stands dismissed.
Any observations made in the present proceedings will not affect the rights of the parties. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open for adjudication in the proceedings of O.S.No.897/2015 filed by the petitioners herein.
Sd/- JUDGE JS/-