Karnataka High Court
Meena Thaniya Devadiga vs Mrs. Nirmala Ganesha on 15 March, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:10906
WP No. 19102 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 19102 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. MEENA THANIYA DEVADIGA
W/O LATE THANIYA MOILY
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
35-194, DARKAS HOUSE,
SRI RAMANAGARA,
NITTE POST-574110,
KARKALA TALUK.
2. JAYANTHI VITTALA DEVADIGA
D/O LATE THANIYAMOILY,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
SRI DURGA DEVI NILAYA,
SRI RAMANAGARA,
NITTE-574110, KARKALA TALUK.
3. DAYANANDA THANIYA DEVADIGA
S/O LATE THANIYA MOILY
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
Digitally 35-194, DARKAS HOUSE
signed by BS
RAVIKUMAR SRI RAMANAGARA,
Location: NITTE POST-574110
HIGH KARKALA TALUK.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
4. VINANTHI SANJEEVA SHERIGARA
D/O LATE THANIYA MOILY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
2-3, MAJALUMANE, MALA,
KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI
5. MEERA RAVI SHERIGARA
D/O LATE THANIYAMOILY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
76 BADAGUBETTU VILLAGE
INDRANAGAR,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:10906
WP No. 19102 of 2021
KUKKIKATTE, UDUPI.
6. SHIVANANDA THANIYA DEVADIGA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O LATE THANIYA MOILY
35-194, DARKAS HOUSE,
SRI RAMANAGARA,
NITTE POST-574110,
KARKALA TALUK.
7. SUSHEELA SUNDAR DEVADIGA
D/O LATE MEENA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
KAJE MANE, MIYAR POST,
KARKALA TALUK.
8. LALITHA SUNDAR DEVADIGA
D/O LATE MEENA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
TIMMAKODI HOUSE
NARAVI VILLAGE AND POST-574109
BELTHANGADI TALUK.
9. DEVAKI ANANDA DEVADIGA
D/O LATE MEENA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
KALPAVRAKSHA HOUSE
KUTHLUR VILLAGE AND POST-574109
BELTHANGADI TALUK.
10. PRABHAKARA RUKHMAYYA DEVADIGA
S/O LATE MEENA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
MITILA NIWAS
KUTHLUR VILLAGE AND POST-574109
BELTHANGADI TALUK.
11. JAYANANDA RUKHMAYYA DEVADIGA
S/O LATE MEENA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
MITILA NIWAS
KUTHLUR VILLAGE AND POST-574109
BELTHANGADI TALUK
12. LOKESH RUKHMAYYA DEVADIGA
S/O LATE MEENA
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:10906
WP No. 19102 of 2021
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
MITILA NIWAS
KUTHLUR VILLAGE AND POST-574109
BELTHANGADI TALUK.
13. SHASHIKALA PADMANABHA DEVADIGA
W/O LATE PADMANABHA RUKHMAYYA DEVADIGA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
MITILA NIWAS
KUTHLUR VILLAGE AND POST-574109
BELTHANGADI TALUK
14. SWATHI MAHESH DEVADIGA
D/O LATE PADMANABHA RUKHMAYYA DEVADIGA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
MITILA NIWAS
KUTHLUR VILLAGE AND POST-574109
BELTHANGADI TALUK.
15. SWASTHIK PADMANABHA DEVADIGA
S/O LATE PADMANABHA RUKHMAYYA DEVADIGA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
MITILA NIWAS
KUTHLUR VILLAGE AND POST-574109
BELTHANGADI TALUK.
16. SACHIN DEVADIGA
S/O LATE SADANANDA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
MITILA NIWAS
KUTHLUR VILLAGE AND POST-574109.
BELTHANGADI TALUK.
17. SANDHYA
D/O LATE SADANANDA
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
MITILA NIWAS
KUTHLUR VILLAGE AND POST-574109
BELTHANGADI TALUK.
18. SAHANA
D/O LATE SADANANDA
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
MITILA NIWAS
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:10906
WP No. 19102 of 2021
KUTHLUR VILLAGE AND POST-574109
BELTHANGADI TALUK
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
MRS. NIRMALA GANESHA
W/O GANESH DEVADIGA
ANUGRAHAN NILAYA,
CHETHAK NAGARA,
HIRIANGADY,
KARKALA KASABA VILLAGE-574104
KARKALA TALUK.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 28.09.2021 ON IA NO.11 TO 13 IN O.S.NO.52/2019
ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM KARKALA
(ANNEXURE-M) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The applicants/proposed plaintiff Nos.1(a) to 1(f) and plaintiff Nos.2(a) to 2(l) in O.S.No.52/2019 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Karkala (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') have filed this petition challenging the order dated 28.09.2021 by which, their applications (I.A.Nos.XI to XIII) to come on record as legal representatives of deceased - plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, by condoning the delay, were rejected. -5-
NC: 2024:KHC:10906 WP No. 19102 of 2021
2. The suit in O.S.No.52/2019 was filed for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs' share in the suit schedule properties. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff No.1 died on 12.02.2021 and plaintiff No.2 died on 23.10.2020 and appropriate applications were filed by the applicants/petitioners herein to come on record on 16.09.2021.
3. The Trial Court rejected the application for condonation of delay on the ground that the applicants did not satisfactorily explain the delay in filing the applications.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order, this petition is filed by the applicants/legal representatives of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants submitted that the cause of action had survived the death of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and in view of the fact that the country was gripped by COVID-19 pandemic, the applications to come on record could not be filed in time. He submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in suo-moto writ petition had enlarged the time from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 for all purposes in respect of all matters pending before all Courts in the country. He -6- NC: 2024:KHC:10906 WP No. 19102 of 2021 therefore, submitted that the delay caused in filing the applications ought to have been condoned. Even otherwise, he contends that since the applicants were entitled to pursue the suit on their own as legal representatives, the Trial Court must have been liberal in construing the reason for delay and must have permitted them to come on record.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent supported the order passed by the Trial Court and contended that the applications ought to have been filed in time.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners/applicant as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.
8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants, the period commencing from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 was ordered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, to be excluded for the purpose of determining the limitation applicable to proceedings before the Courts. Therefore, the petitioners/applicants were prevented by sufficient cause in filing applications in time. Even otherwise, when the applicants are entitled to pursue the suit as the legal representatives of -7- NC: 2024:KHC:10906 WP No. 19102 of 2021 deceased - plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, more particularly when the cause of action had survived the death of the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, the Court ought to have been more considerate in considering the application for condonation of delay as held by this Court in the case of Dhareppa vs. Shankar and others [2018 SCC Online Kar 2896].
9. In that view of the matter, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.09.2021 passed on I.A.Nos.XI to XIII by the Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Karkala, in O.S.No.52/2019 is set aside. The applications (I.A.Nos.XI to XIII) filed by the petitioners/applicants are allowed and they are permitted to come on record as the legal representatives of the deceased - plaintiff Nos.1 and 2. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs shall amend the plaint before the Trial Court on the next date of hearing.
Sd/-
JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33