Karnataka High Court
Sri K N Ashok vs Smt K N Mamatha on 29 July, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION No.57885 OF 2016 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI K N ASHOK
S/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
2. SRI K.N.RAVI KUMAR
S/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
3. SMT. K.N. SUJATHA
D/O LATE NARAYANAREDDY,
W/O SRINIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
4. SMT.CHANDRAKALA
D/O LATE NARAYANAREDDY,
W/O NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
5. SMT.LAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE NARAYANAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS,
RESIDENTS OF KOLIMENAHALLI VILLAGE,
NANDI HOBLI, CHICKKABALLAPUR TALUK
AND DISTRICT - 562 101.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI H.R. NARAYANA RAO, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. SMT. K.N.MAMATHA
D/O LATE K.N. NARASIMHA REDDY
W/O SHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
2. SRI K.N. MADHUSUDHANA REDDY
S/O LATE K.N. NARASIMHA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
3. SRI K.N. BHASKARA REDDY
S/O LATE K.N. NARASIMHA REDY
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
4. SMT. GOWRAMMA
W/O LATE K.N. NARASIMHA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4 ARE
RESIDING AT KOLIMENAHALLI VILLAGE,
NANDI HOBLI,
CHICKKABALLAPUR TALUK - 561 101
CHICKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.
5. SMT. GANGASHREE
D/O LATE K.N. NARASIMHA REDDY,
HINDU, MAJOR,
RESIDING AT CHINTHADAPPI,
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK,
CHICKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 101.
6. MASTER NAVEEN
S/O LATE K.N. NARASIMHA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY
HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN/MOTHER,
THE 4TH RESPONDENT SMT.GOWRAMMA.
7. SMT.SHANTHAMMA
D/O LATE TEKALLI NARASIMHA REDDY,
W/O KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
3
R/AT NAYANAHALLI VILLAGE,
NANDI HOBLI,
CHICKKABALLAPUR - 562 101.
8. SMT.GANGAMMA
D/O LATE TEKALLI NARASIMHA REDDY,
W/O KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT THIPPENAHALLI VILLAGE,
NANDI HOBLI,
CHICKKABALLAPUR TALUK - 562 101.
9. SMT. B.V.VEENA
D/O LATE VENKATARATHNAM SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
10. SRI B V BALAJI
S/O LATE VENKATARATHNAM SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
11. SRI B V ABHINANDAN
S/O LATE VENKATARATHNAM SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
12. SRI B V KRISHNA
S/O LATE VENKATARATHNAM SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO.9 TO 12 ARE
RESIDING AT NORTH EXTENSION,
KSRTC, GUARAGE ROAD,
NEAR CITIZEN'S CLUB,
CHICKKABALLAPUR - 562 101.
13. SRI NAGENDRAPPA
S/O LATE GURRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs
1(a) NAGAMMA,
W/O LATE NAGENDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT POSETTIHALLI GATE (V)
4
NANDI HOBLI,
CHICKKABALLAPUR - 561 211.
1(b) SHIVA KRISHNA,
S/O LATE NAGENDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT POSETTIHALLI GATE (V)
NANDI HOBLI,
CHICKKABALLAPUR - 561 211.
1(c) SATISH,
S/O LATE NAGENDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/AT POSETTIHALLI GATE (V)
NANDI HOBLI,
CHICKKABALLAPUR - 561 211.
14. SRI VENUGOPALA REDDY
S/O LATE LAKSHMINARASAMMA
AND BYRA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
15. SMT.LEELAMMA
D/O LATE LAKSHMINARASAMMA,
AND BYRA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
BOTH RESIDING AT HALEHALLI VILLAGE,
MANCHENAHALLI HOBLI,
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK-561211
18. SRI MUNIREDDY
S/O LATE LAKSHMINARASAMMA
AND BYRAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.16 TO 18 ARE
R/AT KORENAHALLI VILLAGE,
MANDIKAL HOBLI,
CHICKKABALLAPUR TALUK-562104.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H R ANANTHAKRISHNA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR
R13(C);
5
R5, R7, R11, R12, 13(A), R13(B), R15, R16, 17, R18 ARE
SERVED;
R6 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R4;
R2 IS DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 29.07.2022;
NOTICE TO R1, R3, R4, R8, R9, R10 & R14 ARE DISPENSED
WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 29.07.2022)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 22.09.2016 ON I.A.20 IN O.S.531/2007 PASSED BY THE
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
CHIKKABALLAPUR (ANNEX-A), ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners were the plaintiffs in O.S.No.531/2007 on the file of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkaballapura, who have challenged an order dated 22.09.2016 passed therein, by which, the Court rejected an application filed by them under Order IX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (henceforth referred to as "CPC" for short) to take steps against the legal representatives of defendant No.3.
6
2. For the sake of convenience and easy understanding, the parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.
3. The suit in O.S.No.531/2007 was filed for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs' 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs claimed that they and defendant Nos.1 to 18 were the coparceners, who were entitled for an undivided share in the suit schedule properties. They contended that the defendants refused to partition the properties, which compelled the plaintiffs to secure the records of the suit properties and found the name of Venkatarathnam Shetty, who was no more and the defendant Nos.9 to 12 were his legal heirs. They also found the name of the defendant No.13, who apparently had purchased some of the suit schedule properties.
4. The plaintiffs contend that the defendant No.13 expired and the Trial Court had directed the plaintiffs to take steps to bring the legal representatives of the 7 deceased defendant No.13. The plaintiffs filed appropriate application to bring the legal representatives of deceased - defendant No.13 on 31.07.2012. Since the plaintiffs did not take any steps to bring the legal representatives of the defendant No.13 on record, the suit was dismissed against the defendant No.13. Later, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order IX Rule 4 of CPC seeking permission to take steps against the legal representatives of defendant No.13. The Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the plaintiffs were not diligent in taking steps to implead the legal representatives of defendant No.13. The Trial Court also held that the revenue documents did not show the name of the defendant No.13 and therefore, the presence of legal representatives of defendant No.13 was wholly unnecessary.
5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the plaintiffs have filed this writ petition.
8
6. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the plaintiffs may be granted an opportunity to pursue the suit against the legal representatives of the defendant No.13.
7. However, the learned counsel for the defendants submitted that the plaintiffs have been extremely negligent in not pursuing the suit diligently and therefore, no indulgence should be shown to the plaintiffs.
8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
9. The suit is filed for partition and separate possession. The name of the defendant No.13 seems to appear in some revenue documents, which compelled the plaintiffs to seek necessary reliefs against the defendant No.13. In that view of the matter, the legal representatives of defendant No.13 ought to have been brought on record. If the plaintiffs have failed to comply with the same, an opportunity has to be granted to them. However, at the same time, the defendants have to be 9 compensated for the delay in prosecuting the suit. Hence, the following, ORDER The writ petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated 22.09.2016 passed by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chickaballapur, is set aside. The application filed the plaintiffs under Order IX Rule 4 of CPC is allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) payable to the defendants equally on the next date of hearing.
Sd/-
JUDGE PMR