Karnataka High Court
Gurusiddawwa W/O. Basappa Kudari vs Rajeshwari W/O. Chandrasekhar on 24 July, 2014
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA
WRIT PETITION NO.84705/2013 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN
1. SMT.GURUSIDDAWWA W/O. BASAPPA KUDARI
AGE: 82 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. GHANTIKERI ONI, HUBLI
2. GURULINGAPPA S/O. BASAPPA KUDARI
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED RAILWAY
EMPLOYEE, R/AT: GHANTIKERI ONI, HUBLI
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.SANTOSH NARGUND, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAJESHWARI W/O. CHANDRASEKHAR
MAMANI, AGE: 55 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. NEAR SHIGLI, BUS STAND, SIGLI
NOW R/AT: MYSORE
2. MALLIKARJUN S/O. BASAPPA KUDARI
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
R/O. NEAR BASAVAN TEMPLE
GHANTIKERI ONI, HUBLI
:2:
3. SMT.MAMATA W/O. MALLIKARJUN KUDARI
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. NEAR BASAVAN TEMPLE
GHANTIKERI ONI, HUBLI
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MALLIKARJUN C.BASAREDDY, ADV. FOR R1;
R2 AND R3 ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, HUBLI IN OS.NO.395/2011 DATED
11.11.2013 ON IA NO.XI FILED U/O 1 RULE 10(6) OF CPC
AS PER ANNEXURE-G AND IA NO.IX MAY KINDLY BE
ALLOWED.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have called in question the order dated 11.11.2013 passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.395/2011 on I.A.No.XI vide Annexure-G.
2. By the impugned order at Annexure-G, the trial Court has rejected I.A.No.XI filed by the petitioners to transpose the first respondent as plaintiff No.3 in the suit. :3:
3. Aggrieved by that, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.
4. Briefly stated the facts are:
The respondents 2 and 3 have filed suit in O.S.No.395/2011 for partition and separate possession of the suit properties. Thereafter, the respondents 2 and 3 have compromised the matter and they have filed compromise petition. They have agreed to give up their share to the extent of 1/4th in favour of the second petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed I.A.No.XI to transpose the first respondent as plaintiff No.3 in the suit. The trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that the first respondent is already examined as DW1 and exhibits D1 to D4 have been marked. Aggrieved by that, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in :4: law. He also submitted that the petitioners and the respondents 2 and 3 have compromised the matter and therefore, the petitioners have filed I.A.No.XI to transpose the first respondent as plaintiff No.3 in the suit. Therefore, the trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application.
6. As against this, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the impugned order does not call for interference. He also submitted that the first respondent is already examined as DW1 and exhibits D1 to D4 have been marked. The petitioners have compromised the matter with the respondents 2 and 3 and they have stepped into the shoes of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the trial Court was justified in rejecting the application. The impugned order does not call for interference.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. :5:
8. The point that arise for my consideration is:
• Whether the impugned order calls for interference?
9. It is relevant to note, the suit in O.S.No.395/2011 has been filed by the respondents 2 and 3 for partition and separate possession of the suit properties. The respondents 2 and 3 and the petitioners have compromised the matter and they have filed compromise petition. The compromise petition shows that the respondents 2 and 3 have agreed to give up their share to the extent of 1/4th in favour of the second petitioner. It is also stated, the second petitioner will become full and absolute owner of the suit property to the extent of 1/4th share of the respondents 2 and 3 along with his 1/4th share. The second petitioner has stepped into the shoes of the plaintiffs. The second petitioner is not asking to transpose him as plaintiff. But, the petitioners are asking to transpose first respondent as plaintiff No.3. The first respondent is already examined as DW1 and exhibits D1 to D4 have been :6: marked. Therefore, in the circumstances, the trial Court was justified in rejecting the application. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Vnp*