- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2173 WP No. 202692 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 202692 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. SHOBHARANI W/O SHANMUKAPPA AGE: ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O SHIVAJI NAGAR, DABKE LAYOUT, BASAVAKALYAN, DISTRICT – BIDAR – 585327. …PETITIONER (BY SRI KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SPARSHA D/O GOURISH DHABKE U/G OF BHAGYASHREE W/O GOURISH DABKE AGE: ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE R/O BASAVA NAGAR COLONY, GUMPA ROAD, BIDAR. 2. SHANMUKAPPA S/O BHEEMANNA DABKE AGE: 82 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 3. GOURISH S/O SHANMUKAPPA DABKE AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, 4. KIRAN W/O BABURAO PUJARI AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, 5. RENUKA W/O KISHORE GUNDALA AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2173 WP No. 202692 of 2024 6. SHIRSHA W/O SRISH AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, 7. DEVIKA W/O SUNIL AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 7 ARE RESIDENTS OF SHIVAJI NAGAR, DABKE LAYOUT BASAVAKALYAN, BIDAR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SANTOSH BIRADAR, ADV. FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2, R3, R6 & R7 – SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AN JMFC AT BASAVAKALYAN DATED 12.08.2024 IN O.S.NO.06/2017 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This petition is filed seeking following relief’s; “It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to allow this writ petition and issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to; - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2173 WP No. 202692 of 2024 a) Set aside the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC at Basavakalyan dated 12.08.2024 in O.S.No.06/2017 produced at Annexure-F b) Consequently, dismiss the I.A No.12 filed by the respondent No.1/Plaintiff U/O 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for Impleading in O.S.No.06/2017 before the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC Basavakalyan. c) Pass such other order or direction, this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstance of the case.” 2. Sri.Krupa Sagar Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in a suit filed for partition and separate possession by respondent No.1, belated application in IA.No.XII is filed by the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, seeking to implead the grand- mother of plaintiff namely Shobha Rani W/o: Shanmukappa Dabke. The trial Court without appreciating the fact that the suit is filed in the year 2017 and the defendants filed written statement on 10.04.2017, wherein - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2173 WP No. 202692 of 2024 the specific assertion is made that suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e., Smt.Shobha Rani, who is the owner of some properties. It is the specific assertion made in the written statement that the petitioner-Shobha Rani has formed the layout and sold the sites from the year 2004 onwards and knowing fully well the plaintiff has not taken steps to implead the petitioner in the suit and only on 04.03.2023, an application came to be filed when the matter was posted for further examination-in-chief of defendant No.2. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not a necessary and proper party to the suit. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order. 3. Per contra, Sri.Santosh Biradar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 supports the order of the trial Court and submits that the respondent No.1/plaintiff who is minor is residing with her mother and her mother is separated from her father who is the defendant No.2 in the suit and residing separately and she - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2173 WP No. 202692 of 2024 has no legal knowledge with regard to the filing of an application. Hence, there is a delay in filing the application. It is submitted that the pleadings and evidence on record indicates that the petitioner has certain properties and as per the plaintiff those properties are the ancestral properties. Hence, the petitioner is a proper and necessary party to the proceedings. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The respondent No.1 has filed the suit in O.S.No.6/2017 seeking decree of partition and separate possession of the 1/3rd share in the suit schedule A, B and C properties. The material available on record indicates that the plaintiff who is a minor is being represented by her mother in the suit and she has sought impleadment of the grand-mother, who is the petitioner in the present - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2173 WP No. 202692 of 2024 proceedings. The pleadings and evidence indicates that part of schedule B property was standing in the name of petitioner/grand-mother and the suit being for the partition and separate possession, the petitioner is proper and necessary party to decide the lis between the parties. 6. The contention of the petitioner is that the portion of schedule B property is self-acquired property, however that issue cannot be gone into at this stage. Ultimately, the trial Court is required to look into the case on its merits as to whether the portion of the schedule B property is self-acquired property of the petitioner or the ancestral property during the course of trial. The trial Court, considering the pleadings and material available on record has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner is a proper and necessary party to the suit. Hence, I do not find any error in the aforesaid finding of the trial Court, calling for interference in the writ petition. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the suit is filed in the year 2017 and the contesting defendants have - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2173 WP No. 202692 of 2024 filed written statement on 10.04.2017, wherein a specific stand is taken that the suit is liable to rejected for non- joinder of necessary parties, knowing fully well the plaintiff has filed application only on 04.03.2023. Considering the same, the impugned order is upheld subject to the condition that the plaintiff shall pay cost of Rs.2,500/- to the petitioner. 7. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following; ORDER The writ petition is devoid of merits and rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE MSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18 CT: PS