IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA W.P.NO.87 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) Between:
1. Sri Mahadevaiah, 59 Years, S/o. late Puttashamaiah, R/at Banavadi Village, Solur Hobli, Magadi Taluk-562 127, Ramanagara District.
2. Smt Mahadevamma, 46 yrs, W/o. Mahadevaiah, R/at Banavadi Village, Solur Hobli, Magadi Taluk-562 127, Ramanagara District.
3. Sri Kiran Kumar, 26 yrs, S/o. Mahadevaiah R/at Banavadi Village, Solur Hobli, Magadi Taluk-562 127, Ramanagara District.
… Petitioners (By Sri Basavarajappa D.R., Adv.) And:
1. Sri B.C. Shadaksharaiah, 54 yrs, S/o. late B.R. Channabasappa, R/at Banavadi Village, Solur Hobli, Magadi Taluk-562 127, Ramanagara District.
2. Smt. Rajamma, 64 yrs, W/o. late Chandrashekaraiah, R/at Anjanappa Extension, G. Hosahalli main road, 1st Cross, Gollarahatti, Vishwaneedam Post, Bengaluru - 560 091.
3. Sri B.C. Nataraju, 64 yrs, S/o. late B.R. Channabasappa, R/at Banavadi Village, Solur Hobli, Magadi Taluk-562 127, Ramanagara District.
4. Sri B.C. Udaya kumar, 62 yrs, S/o. late B.R. Channabasappa, R/at Banavadi Village, Solur Hobli, Magadi Taluk-562 127, Ramanagara District.
5. Sri B.C. Arun Kumar, 40 yrs, S/o. B.C. Chandrashekaraiah, R/at Banavadi Village, Solur Hobli, Magadi Taluk-562 127, Ramanagara District, 6. Sri B.C. Yathish Kumar, 34 yrs, S/o. B.C. Chandrashekaraiah, R/at Banavadi Village, Solur Hobli, Magadi Taluk-562 127, Ramanagara District.
... Respondents *** This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated 30.05.2018 passed on I.A. under Section 151 of CPC vide Annexure-A to the W.P. filed by the petitioners in O.S.No. 208/2014 on the file of the learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Magadi.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Defendants No.6 to 8 have filed the present writ petition against the order dated 30.05.2018 passed on I.A. filed under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure in O.S.No.208/2014 on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Magadi rejecting the application filed by them seeking for permission to file their written statement.
2. Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession. He contended that the suit schedule property is the joint property of the plaintiff and there was no partition in respect of suit schedule property. The defendants No.4 and 5 filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that the suit schedule property is already alienated on 02.04.2001. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable. Defendants No.6 to 8 filed a memo on 05.09.2014 adopting the written statement of defendant Nos.4 and 5.
3. When the matter was posted for cross- examination of P.W.-1, at that stage, defendants No.6 to 8 filed application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking for permission to file written statement and contended that earlier, defendants No.6 to 8 filed memo adopting the written statement filed by defendants No.4 and 5. There is no separate written statement by these defendants. Therefore, separate written statement requires to be filed as they are the contesting defendants in the suit. The said application was resisted by the plaintiff. The trial Court considering the application, by the impugned order dated 30.05.2018 has rejected the said application. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.
4. Sri Basavarajappa D.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the impugned order of the trial Court rejecting the application filed by defendants No.6 to 8 is erroneous and contrary to material placed on record. He would further contend that the suit for partition was filed by the respondent No.1-plaintiff. Same was denied by the defendants No.4 to 5. Though memo of adoption of written statement is filed, earlier, there was no independent written statement. Since the petitioner No.1 is the bonafide purchaser, a separate written statement is required to be filed. Therefore, he sought to allow the present writ petition.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, it is not in dispute that the respondent No.1 has filed a suit for partition and separate possession in respect of suit schedule property morefully described in the plaint schedule.
Defendants No.4 and 5 filed written statement and the present petitioners also filed a memo for adoption of written statement filed by defendants No.4 and 5 in the year 2014. Thereafter, they filed an application on 31.03.2018 seeking for permission to file separate written statement when the matter was posted for cross-examination of P.W.-1. The trial Court considering the material placed on record, has held that the suit is for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule property. Advocate for defendants No.4 and 5 has filed written statement for defendants No.4 and 5 and advocate for defendants No.3, 6 to 8 has filed a memo to adopt the written statement of defendants No.4 and 5 on 05.09.2014. The contentions which have been stated in the written statement of defendants No.4 and 5, the same have been stated in the written statement of defendants No.6 to 8 also. Hence, there is no necessary to file another written statement and filing of two written statements is not permissible. Accordingly, the application was rejected.
6. The material placed on record clearly depicts that the vendors of defendants No.6 to 8 already filed written statement in the suit for partition and defendants No.6 to 8 have also filed a memo for adoption of written statement filed by their vendors- defendants No.4 and 5. Therefore, there is no necessity once again for them to file written statement which is not permissible in the eye of law.
In view of the aforesaid reason, the petitioners have not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of power under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE PN/-