IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.51776 OF 2013 (GM - CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI. V.N.NAGARAJU, S/O LATE NARAYANSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.435, SUBARAYANAPETE, CHIKKABALLAPUR TOWN AND DISTRICT – 563 112.
(BY SHRI.SURESH D DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. SHARADAMMA, WIFE OF SRINIVASA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/A CHIKKATHIMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, DAPPARTHI POST, SOMENAHALLI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT – 563 112.
2. SMT. MANJULAMMA, WIFE OF B.N.MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/A BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, SREERAMPURA POST, NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT – 563 112.
3. SMT. JAGADAMBA, WIFE OF NAGARAJA, …PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/A GONGADIPURA VILLAGE, GOLLAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT – 563 112.
4. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, D/O MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/A CHEEDACHIKKANAHALLI, AGALAGURKI POST, NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT – 563 112.
5. MUNISHAMAPPA, S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, 6. SMT. PILLAMMA, W/O MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED:65 YEARS, 7. SMT. MUNITHAYAMMA, W/O MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED: 60 YEARS, 8. MUNIKRISHNAPPA, S/O MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED: 36 YEARS, 9. M.THAMMEGOWDA, S/O MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED: 25 YEARS, 10. M.ARUN KUMAR, S/O MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED: 22 YEARS, 11. M. NAGARAJU, S/O MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED: 38 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 11 ARE R/AT CHEEDACHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, AGALAGURKI POST, NANDI HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
12. NARAYANASWAMY, S/O MUNIBYRAPPA, AGED: 42 YEARS, 13. MUNIEERAPPA, S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED: 65 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.12 AND 13 ARE R/AT CHEEDACHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, AGALAGURKI POST, NANDI HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
14. C. RANJITHA, D/O ANIL KUMAR REDDY, AGED 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.16/1191, KASTURIDEVINAGAR, NELLORE – 524 001.
15. D. KOTI REDDY, S/O LAKSHMANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.220, 1ST BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 010.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. L. LANKESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4 (ABSENT); SRI. T.K. RAJAGOPALA, ADVOCATE FOR R5-R10 (ABSENT) SRI.SHASHIKUMAR S, ADVOCATE FOR R11 (ABSNET); SRI. M.C.JAYAKIRTHI, ADVOCATE FOR R12 & 13(ABSENT) R14 & 15 SERVED (UN – REPRESENTED)) ***** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.8.2013 PASSED BY THE SR.CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHIKKABALLAPUR ON I.A.NO.12, FILED U/O 1 RULE 10(2) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, IN OS NO.126/06 & ALLOW IA NO.12 VIDE ANNEXURE – E AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Mr. Suresh D.Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
On 19.12.2018, none had appeared for the respondents. Therefore, the petition was posted for hearing after winter vacation. However, today also none has appeared on behalf of the respondents.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.
3. In this petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 31.8.2013 passed by the trial court, by which application preferred by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed.
4. Facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition briefly stated are, respondents No.1 to 4 have filed a suit seeking relief of partition and separate possession. On 9.4.2007 the defendants filed written statement. Thereafter, the petitioner, who claims to be the owner in respect of agricultural lands mentioned in suit schedule properties admeasuring 3 acres 25 gunts, filed an application seeking impleadment. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the trial Court on the ground that without impleading the petitioner, the issues involved in the present suit can be resolved. In the aforesaid factual background the petitioner is before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that similar application was filed by one Thimmarayappa before the trial Court, which was rejected by the trial Court by order dated 31.8.2013. Being aggrieved, the aforesaid Thimmarayappa had filed Writ Petition No.52986/2013 (GM-CPC), which was remanded by this court by order dated 7.08.2014 to consider and decide the application afresh in the light of the observations made in the order. The petitioner, therefore, submits that this writ petition be disposed of on similar terms.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record.
6. The order passed by the trial Court appears to be cryptic and suffers from the vice of non-application of mind. With a view to maintain parity, in the light of the order dated 7.8.2014 passed in Writ Petition No.52986.2013 (GM-CPC), the impugned order dated 31.8.2013 is herby quashed and set-aside and the trial Court is directed to decide the application preferred by the petitioner afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. It is needless to state that the respondents are at liberty to file objections to the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ln.