Karnataka High Court
Smt.Rashmi @ Uma Sudir Anurshettar vs Smt.Prema W/O Kiran Anurshettar on 8 January, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 790
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S.G. Pandit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8 T H DAY OF JANUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
WRIT PETI TION NO.116712/2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT.RASHMI @ UMA SUDIR ANURSHETTAR
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: SAHYADRI COLONY,
YELLAPUR ROAD,
TQ: SIRSI, DIST: KARWAR-581401.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRASHANT V MOGALI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT.PREMA W/O KIRAN ANURSHETTAR
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: SAHYADRI COLONY,
YELLAPUR ROAD,
TQ: SIRSI,
DIST: KARWAR-581401.
2. SMT.GIRIJA W/O SHIVANDAPPA PAMPANNAVAR
AGE: 58 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KONDAWADGALLI,
HAVERI,
TQ & DIST: HAVERI-581110.
3. SMT.RENUKA W/O SHIVANDAPPA PAMPANNAVAR
AGE: 56 YEARS,
2
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KONDAWADGALLI,
HAVERI,
TQ & DIST: HAVERI-581110.
4. SRI.MUREGAPPA S/O SHIVANDAPPA PAMPANNAVAR
AGE: 33 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KONDAWADGALLI,
HAVERI,
TQ & DIST: HAVERI-581110.
5. SRI.RAJSHEKAR S/O SHIVANDAPPA PAMPANNAVAR
AGE: 31 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KONDAWADGALLI,
HAVERI,
TQ & DIST: HAVERI-581110.
6. SRI.VISHWANATH S/O SHIVANDAPPA PAMPANNAVAR
AGE: 33 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KONDAWADGALLI,
HAVERI,
TQ & DIST: HAVERI-581110.
... RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONS TITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURRE OF CERTIORARI
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.11.2019 ON
I.A.NO.20 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HAVERI IN O.S.NO.123/2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-F.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEA RING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The plaintiff in O.S.No.123/2013 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Haveri is before this Court aggrieved by the rejection of I.A.No.20 by order dated 22.11.2019 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC.
2. The plaintiff/petitioner filed suit for partition and separate possession of suit schedule property. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that along with the plaint the plaintiff had also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, where the trial Court granted an order of injunction on 31.10.2013 restraining the defendants No.2 to 6 from in any way alienating the suit schedule properties or creating third party charge and the said interim order was continued from time to time and operating as on this date. The 4 defendants No.2 to 6 alleged to have sold the property by making separate plots to the proposed respondents in the impleading application. The said application was opposed by the defendants. The trial Court under the impugned order rejected the application on the ground that the application is vague and no particulars have been furnished in the application and the affidavit accompanying the impleading application. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court in this writ petition.
3. On perusal of the application, I.A.No.20 filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC, the said application depicts the name of 18 persons to be impleaded in the suit on the ground that they are purchasers from defendants No.4 and 5. The affidavit would not 5 give the particulars as to from whom the proposed respondents purchased the suit schedule property under which document.
4. In the absence of necessary particulars to examine as to whether the proposed defendants are necessary parties or not, the trial court is justified in rejecting the application.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected. However, the petitioner/plaintiff is at liberty to file a fresh impleading application giving necessary particulars and if such an application is filed, the trial Court to consider the same in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sh