Karnataka High Court
Smt. Lakshmibai vs Vasant Yamanappa Muki Since Deceased By ... on 13 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:359
WP No. 100212 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO.100212 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. LAKSHMIBAI D/O. YAMANAPPA
KAMBLE @ MUKI,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: DEVADASI,
R/O. TELASANG, TQ. ATHANI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591 265.
2. SMT. ARATI W/O. JAYASING SHINDE,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: TELASANG, TQ: ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591 265,
NOW AT: NO. H-10, MALMATHA, 285,
AKURUDI DATTAVADI, PUNE TOWN,
MAHARASHTRA-411 035.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GIRISH ARUN YADAWAD, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
AND:
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR VASANT YAMANAPPA MUKI
Location: HIGH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. SMT. CHANDA W/O. VASANT MUKI,
AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: TELASANG, TQ: ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591 265,
NOW AT TIMBAR AREA NAVIN VASAD,
BHIM NAGAR, JOPADPATTI, SANGLI,
TQ: AND DIST: SANGLI, MAHARASHTRA-416 416.
2. SMT. KAVITA W/O. APPASAB KAMBLE,
AG.: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI,
TQ: RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587 311.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:359
WP No. 100212 of 2026
HC-KAR
3. SMT. ASHWINI W/O. PRANAD KAMBLE,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: DAVALLI, TQ: MIRAJ, DIST: SANGLI,
MAHARASHTA-416 410.
4. SHARANAPPA S/O. VASANT MUKI,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
R/O: TELASANG, TQ: ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591 265,
NOW AT: TIMBAR AREA NAVIN VASAD,
BHIM NAGAR, JOPADPATTI, SANGLI,
TQ: & DIST: SANGLI, MAHARASHTRA-416 416.
5. KUMARI. SHRUSHTI D/O. KUMAR MUKI,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT.
R/O: BIJJARGI, TQ: & DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586 114.
6. KUMARI. SUPRIYA D/O. KUMAR MUKI,
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: BIJJARGI, TQ: & DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586 114.
7. GANESH KESHAV KAMBIE @ MUKI,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: SANJAY NAGAR, AALAGONDA PLOT,
SANGLI TQ: & DIST: SANGLI,
MAHARASHTRA-416 416.
8. DEEPESH KESHAV KAMBLE @ MUKI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: SANJAY NAGAR, AALAGONDA PLOT,
SANGLI TQ: & DIST: SANGLI,
MAHARASHTRA-416 416.
9. SMT. REKHA W/O. SUKHADEV GAVADE,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: TIMBAR AREA NAVIN VASAD,
BHIM NAGAR, JOPADPATTI, SANGLI,
TQ: & DIST: SANGLI, MAHARASHTRA-416 416.
10. SMT. ARUNA W/O. VIJAY SAGARE,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: H.H. WORK,
R/O: TIMBAR AREA NAVIN VASAD,
BHIM NAGAR, JOPADPATTI, SANGLI,
TQ: & DIST: SANGLI, MAHARASHTRA-416 416.
...RESPONDENTS
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:359
WP No. 100212 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.10.2025 PASSED ON
I.A. NO.2 IN FDP NO.9/2024 BY THE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, ATHANI VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION
IN I.A. NO.2, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL ORDER
Aggrieved by the order passed on I.A. No.II in FDP No.9/2024 dated 08.10.2025, the proposed parties are before this Court.
2. The facts of the case are that, one Vasant Muki had filed a suit for partition in O.S. No.1051/2007 on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Athani (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court' for short). During the pendency of the suit, the said Vasant died and his legal representatives were impleaded who are the respondents No.1 to 6 herein. The respondents No.7 to 10 are the defendants before the Court. In the said suit, the petitioners herein had filed I.A. No.I seeking impleadment as proposed respondents No.5 and 6. That -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:359 WP No. 100212 of 2026 HC-KAR application was dismissed. While dismissing the application, the trial Court has observed as follows:
"At the outset, from the document produced, it is clear that, the dispute is between plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 4 in the present suit in respect of the suit property purchased by the plaintiff and mother of defendant No.1 to 4 jointly. The said property cannot be construed as hindu undivided joint family of entire family of the plaintiff and defendants and proposed defendant No.5 and 6. Hence, this court is of the view that, the proposed defendant No.5 and 6 may agitate their right in respect of any ancestral or joint family property, if any, belonging to the family of late Yamanappa Muki and not in respect of the suit property which is said to be purchased by the plaintiff and mother of defendant No.1 to 4. As such the proposed defendant No.5 and 6 are neither necessary parties nor proper parties to be impleaded in the present suit so far as it relates to the right of the proposed defendant No.5 and 6 in respect of the suit property. Hence this court has come to the conclusion that, the proposed defendant No.5 and 6 are neither necessary parties nor proper parties to be impleaded in the present suit. As such the application does not survive for consideration and the same deserves to be dismissed. Since this IA No.1 is not maintainable."
3. Then, subsequently, that suit came to be decreed. Thereafter, the final decree proceedings were initiated in FDP No.9/2024. In the meantime, the petitioners filed a separate suit in O.S. No.344/2025 seeking partition contending that the decree in O.S. No.1051/2017 is not binding on them. That suit is pending adjudication. The petitioners have also filed I.A. No.II -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:359 WP No. 100212 of 2026 HC-KAR under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC in the final decree proceedings to implead themselves. That application also came to be dismissed by order impugned, whereby, the trial Court has observed that, when I.A. No.I is dismissed by an order dated 27.06.2018, the petitioners have not assailed the said order and even after the suit was decreed, they have not questioned the said judgment and decree. It is also observed that, the petitioners had every chance to challenge the decree dated 14.10.2022, but, they have not done the same. The conduct of the petitioners clearly shows that they are trying to drag on the proceedings. The trial Court also observed that the petitioners have not made out grounds to allow the impleading application and has come to the conclusion that they are not necessary parties to decide the final decree proceedings, if this application is allowed, definitely, unnecessary delay will be caused to the proceedings and accordingly, dismissed I.A. No.II.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners (i.e.proposed parties) submits that the trial Court ought not to have dismissed I.A. No.II. It is submitted that, the rights of the parties are involved in the case and there is collusion between -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:359 WP No. 100212 of 2026 HC-KAR the parties. As this being a suit for partition and the petitioners are having an interest in the property, they are proper and necessary parties to the final decree proceedings. Irrespective of the fact whether the petitioners have questioned the earlier order dismissing their application for impleadment, still the petitioners can be impleaded in the final decree proceedings as the proceedings are still pending. It is submitted that, without considering all these aspects, the trial Court has dismissed I.A. No.II.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, perused the material on record. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners have filed I.A. No.I in the original suit i.e.O.S. No.1051/2017 and the same came to be dismissed on 27.06.2018. That order is not questioned. This Court has perused the order dated 27.06.2018, wherein, the trial Court has given a finding why the petitioners are not the proper and necessary parties to the suit and the suit came to be decreed. Now, the petitioners have filed an independent suit in O.S. No.344/2025 and are pursuing the same. In the final decree proceedings, with the very same contentions, they have filed I.A. -7- NC: 2026:KHC-D:359 WP No. 100212 of 2026 HC-KAR No.II under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC. The trial Court has considered all the aspects and rightly held that the petitioners without assailing the order dated 27.06.2018 passed on I.A. No.I nor questioning the decree awarded in O.S. No.1051/2017 dated 14.10.2022 have filed an independent suit and now their impleadment in the final decree proceedings arising out of the suit in O.S. No.1051/2017 is not necessary and impleading them will delay the final decree proceedings.
6. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the order that is passed by the trial Court is well considered one and no interference is called for from this Court. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is dismissed.
(ii) All I.A.s in this writ petition shall stand closed.
Sd/-
JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI RH/CT: UMD/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68