Karnataka High Court
Akhtar Begum W/O Late Mohammed ... vs Mohammed Saleem S/O Abdul Hakeem ... on 31 January, 2013
Author: N.Kumar
Bench: N.Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No. 84102/2010 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. AKHTAR BEGUM
W/O LATE MOHAMMED MUBEENUZAFAR
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD
2. MOHAMMED MEHDI ZULFIQARFIQARUDDIN
S/O LATE MOHAMMED MUBEENUZAFAR
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS
3. MOHAMMED MIR FASIUDDIN
S/O LATE MOHAMMED MUBEENUZAFAR
AGE:45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS
4. MOHAMMED NOOR SAIFUDDIN
S/O LATE MOHAMMED MUBEENUZAFAR
AGE:44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS
5. MOHAMMED NAJAM RAZIUDDIN
S/O MOHAMMED MUBEENUZAFAR
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS
PETITIONERS 1 TO 5 ARE
R/O M.M.ZAFAR MANZIL
BEHIND, AIWAN-E, SHAHI
GULLABAWDI, GULBARGA
6. MOHAMMED NASIR KAMAL
2
S/O LATE MOHAMMED MUBEENUZAFAR
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE
R/O : PRESENTLY AT RIYADH
(KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA)
C/O PET NO.2
7. AZAM KHATUN D/O LATE MOHAMMED
MUBEENUZAFAR SINCE DECEASED BY LR
JAMAL FAIZUDDIN BAJE
AGE : 30 YEARS
R/O : HNO.A-1-402/11/13/8
SHAIKH PET, GULSHAN COLONY,
HYDERBAD.
8. NEHAZ KHATUN D/O LATE MOHAMMED
MUBEENUZAFAR
W/O MOHAMMED SIDDIQUE
AGE: 45 YEARS
R/O : TELIGALLI LATUR
TQ: DIST: LATUR
9. ZAKARIA KHATUN D/O LATE MOHAMMED
MUBEENUZ ZAFAR
W/O : MOHAMMED HAIFZ SIDDIQUE
AGE: 42 YEARS, R/O : H.NO.1-1279/1-A-9-A
GULBARGA
10. FIRDOUS KHATUN D/O LATE MOHAMMED
MUBEENUZ ZAFAR
W/O : MOHAMMED OSMAN
AGE:40 YEARS
R/O : H.NO.1-1279/1-A-9-A
GULBARGA
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE)
3
AND:
1. MOHAMMED SALEEM S/O ABDUL HAKEEM
INAMDAR, AGE : 48 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS & AGRI.
R/O DIGGI, TQ: OMERGA
DIST: OSMANABAD
MAHARASHTRA
2. SURGRA BEGUM W/O LATE ABDUL HAKEEM
INAMDAR AGE : 60 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE HOLD
R/O : DIGGI
TQ: OMERGA
DIST: OSMANABAD
MAHARASHTRA
3. MOHAMMED ABU MUSLIM S/O LATE ABDUL
HAKEEM INAMDAR AGE : 45 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST
4. MOHAMMED RAHUL MUSLIM S/O LATE ABDUL
HAKEEM INAMDA
OCC: AGRICULTURIST
5. MOHAMMED KALEEM S/O LATE ABDUL HAKEEM
INAMDAR, AGE : 42YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST
PET NO.3 & 4 ARE R/O : DIGGI
TQ: OMERGA
DIST: OSMANABAD
MAHARASHTRA
6. SHAHEDA BEGUM D/O LATE ABDUL HAKEEM
W/O AHMED ALI AGE : 38 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE HOLD
R/O : GUNJOTI, TQ: OMERGA
DIST: OSMANABAD
MAHARASHTRA
4
7. SULTANA BEGUM D/O LATE ABDUL HAKEEM
W/O ABDUL AZIZ, AGE : 35 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE HOLD
R/O : GUNJOTI
TQ: OMERGA
DIST: OSMANABAD
MAHARASHTRA
8. SAHEENUNNISA BEGUM D/O LATE ABDUL HAKEEM
W/O SHAIK ISMAIL, OCC: HOUSE HOLD
AGE : 33 YEARS, R/O : BET JAWALGA
TQ: OMERGA
DIST: OSMANABAD
MAHARASHTRA
9. MOHAMMED BASHEERUDDIN S/O LATE MOHD.
ZAHURUDDIN AGE : 40 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS
R/O : LATUR
TQ: DIST: LATUR
10. MOHAMMED MASIUDDIN S/O LATE MOHD.
ZUHURUDDIN AGE : 38 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS
R/O : HAGARGA ROAD
GULBARGA
DEFENDANTS 1 TO 9
RESPONDENTS 2 TO 10
11. ANNA RAO PATIL
S/O MALLIKARJUNAPPA PATIL
AGE : 45 YEARS
12. SHARANAGOUDA PATIL
S/O MALLIKARJUNAPPA PATIL
AGE : 43 YEARS
13. KASHINATH PATIL S/O MALLIKARJUNAPPA PATIL
AGE : 42 YEARS
5
ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS
R/O : H.NO.2-222
JAGAT, GULBARGA
14. SNEHALATA W/O SARVATTAM RAO
AGE : 32 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST
R/O : JAGAT,
GULBARGA
... RESPONDENT(S)
(BY SRI. B K HIREMATH, ADV FOR R1
R2-R14 NOTICE NOR ORDERED)
THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT AND
GRANT THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 15.09.2010 PASSED ON I.A. NO. 8 IN O.S. NO.
382/2002 BY THE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AT
GULBARGA, THE CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS AT
ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the trial court allowing the application for amendment and making it clear that the amendment shall have effect from the date of filing the application for amendment.
6
2. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition and separate possession of their legitimate share in the plaint schedule property. The suit is of the year 2002. The defendants filed written statement contending that there was an earlier partition entered into by way of compromise in suit filed for partition and therefore the suit is not maintainable. Thereafter the plaintiffs have filed present application seeking the declaration that the compromise decree is not binding on them. Now the application is allowed without assigning any reasons but making it clear the said amendment is effective only from the date of application. In other words not effective from the date of the filing of the suit. The reason being the plaintiffs contended that the said compromise petition was entered into between the father and uncle of the parties, they were not served suit summons. They played fraud and obtained a decree. Thereafter, nearly after 7 years they have filed this suit. The question is whether the relief sought is barred by time 7 could be gone into at the time of trial. Therefore, the Court below made it clear that the amendment shall have effect from the date of filing of the present application. In that view of the matter, I do not see any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.
As the petition itself is disposed of on merits, IA.I/2012 for early hearing does not survive for consideration. Hence, it is disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE sdu