Karnataka High Court
B.Vijayalaxmi W/O Late. B. Nagaraj And ... vs M. Veeresh Babu S/O M. Bheemiah Shetty & ... on 21 June, 2018
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
ON THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NOS.103336 OF 2013
AND 103911 OF 2013 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. B.VIJAYALAXMI
W/O LATE. B. NAGARAJ
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O SEETHA SRINIVAS
H.NO.7-6-68(105)
OPP: SRI. VASAVI MANDIR
VASAVIPURA, RAICHUR - 584 101
2. M. GUNDIAH SHETTY
S/O M. BHEEMIAH SHETTY
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O H.NO. 1-1-126 (OLD NO.1-1-83)
UDAYANAGAR COLONY, STATION ROAD
RAICHUR - 584 101
3. M. ANANTHRAJ
S/O M. BHEEMIAH SHETTY
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O DEEPA AGENCIES
IMPORTS & EXPORTS
MAHESHWARI COMPLEX
SHOP NO.27-28, 1ST FLOOR
MASAB TANK, HYDERABAD (AP) - 500 010
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ASHOK S. KINAGI, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. M. VEERESH BABU S/O M. BHEEMIAH SHETTY
AGE: 55 YEARS, R/O H.NO.1-1-126 (OLD NO.1-1-83)
UDAYANAGAR COLONY, STATION ROAD, RAICHUR
BEING OF UNSOUND MIND IS REPRESENTED BY
HIS NEXT FRIEND M. VASUDEV SHETTY
S/O M. VEERESH BABU, AGE:30 YEARS
OCC: STUDENT, R/O UDAYANAGAR COLONY
STATION ROAD, RAICHUR - 584 101
2. FIRM NAMED & STYLED "VARALAKSHMI INDUSTRIES"
BEARING M. NO.12-6-236 & 12-6-236/1
(OLD NO.12-6-171/17A), INDUSTRIAL AREA
RAICHUR, THROUGH ITS PARTNERS
A) M. VENKAT NARAYAN S/O M. VEERARAJU
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O SAWITRI NILAYA, SOMWARPET
RAICHUR - 584 101
B) M.V.V.S.V. PRASAD S/O M. VENKATNARAYAN
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O SAWITRI NILAYA, SOMWARPET
RAICHUR - 584 101
C) UDAY BHASKAR RAO S/O M. VENKATNARAYAN
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O SAWITRI NILAYA, SOMWARPET
RAICHUR - 584 101
D) SMT. SUBBARAYADU W/O M. VENKATNARAYAN
AGE: 85 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O SAWITRI NILAYA, SOMWARPET
RAICHUR - 584 101
3. "SRI LAXMINARAYANA RICE INDUSTRIES"
RAICHUR, PLOT NOS.25, 26, 43, & 44
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD
HYDERABAD ROAD, RAICHUR - 584 101
A) M.K. LAXMINARAYANA S/O M.K. HANUMANTHIAH
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
3
R/O PLOT NOS.25, 26, 43 & 44
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD
HYDERABAD ROAD, RAICHUR - 584 101
B) M.K. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O M.K. HANUMANTHIAH
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O PLOT NOS.25, 26, 43 & 44
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD
HYDERABAD ROAD, RAICHUR - 584 101
C) M.K. HANUMESH S/O M.K. HANUMANTHIAH
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O PLOT NOS.25, 26, 43 & 44
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD
HYDERABAD ROAD, RAICHUR - 584 101
... RESPONDENTS
(SRI S.S. MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
V/O DATED 31.05.2016, NOTICE TO R2 (A TO D)
IS DISPENSED WITH;
R3 (A TO C) - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE
ORDER OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING
ORDER DATED 12.09.2013 ON I.A.NO.XX AND XXI PASSED IN
O.S.NO.27 OF 2003 BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND CJM, RAICHUR VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND CONSEQUENTLY
REJECT I.A.NOS.XX AND XXI WITH COST.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The first respondent filed a suit for partition which was instituted by the next friend/his son. Thereafter, I.A.No.20 was filed by one M. Vasudev Shetty under Order 4 XXXII Rule 15 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to withdraw his Guardianship or acting as next friend to defend the case on behalf of the plaintiff/his father and I.A.No.21 was filed by another person to act as Guardian and next friend to defend the case on behalf of his father M.Veeresh Babu, Plaintiff. By the impugned order, both the applications were allowed. Hence, the present petitions.
2. The trial Court was of the view that the applications require to be allowed in the interest of justice. That, when the earlier next friend intends to withdraw his guardianship, there cannot be a compulsion to allow the applications. However, what is being contended is that the original plaintiff cannot be said to be insane and he need not be represented by next friend. An enquiry is to be held. Therefore, the order is erroneous.
3. The same is disputed by the respondents. 5
4. On hearing learned counsels, I'am of the considered view that there is no merit in these petitions.
5. The fact is that, what is allowed by the applications is mere substitution. The original suit is filed as far as back in the year 2003. The applications are virtually the applications for substitution. Therefore, the same would not affect any of the legal rights of the defendants. So far as the impugned order is concerned, I do not find any ground to interfere with the same.
Consequently, the petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE LG