IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 23rd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT PETITION NO.5006/2017(LR-RES) BETWEEN:
SMT. RANGAMMA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS, 1. D.R.RAMAKRISHNAPPA, S/O LATE RANGAPPA D.G., AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 2. D.G.NAGESH, S/O LATE RANGAPPA D.G., AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 3. D.G.UMESH, S/O LATE RANGAPPA D.G., AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, APPELLANT Nos. 1 to 3 ARE R/O NILOGAL, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
4. SMT. RADHAMMA, W/O VISHNU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 5. SMT. SAROJAMMA, W/O MOHAN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 6. SMT. NINGAMMA, W/O NAGENDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 7. SMT. THIMMAMMA, W/O BASANAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, APPELLANT Nos.4 to 7 ARE AT C/O D.R.RAMAKRISHANAPPA, R/O NILOGAL, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577001.
(BY SRI. DAYANAND S. PATIL, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY (FOR HEARING FORM NO.7A APPLICATIONS), CHANNAGIRI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577001.
3. THE TAHSILDAR, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, CHANNAGIRI, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577001.
4. SRI. RAMAPPA, S/O DHARMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, NILOGAL, DAGINAKATTE POST, BASAVAPATNA HOBLI, ... PETITIONERS CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577001.
(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, HCGP.) ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER ANNEX-A DTD.6.10.2016 PASSED ON I.A.NO.V IN A.NO.399/2006 BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU AND DISMISS I.A.NO.V FILED BY THE R-4.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R In the pending dispute before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, fourth respondent herein filed an application seeking to implead himself. Vide the impugned order, he was impleaded. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.
2. Counsel for the petitioners contends that impleadment of respondent No.4 is in appropriate. He is not at all the legal representative of deceased Ramappa. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there is serious dispute as to whether respondent No.4 is the legal representative of deceased Ramappa or not.
3. However, as could be seen from the impugned order, the applicant is ordered to be brought on record as respondent No.4. There is no finding that he is the lawful legal representative and he is entitled to prosecute the same as such. Only because he is brought on record as a legal representative, it does not give him the status as such and that allowing the application would not confer any status to Respondent No.4. as the legal representative of deceased Ramappa. The said issue would have to be answered by the appropriate Court as to whether he is the legal representative or not. The order impleading him does not call for interference.
Petition is disposed off.
SD/- JUDGE *alb/-.