- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1059 WP No. 52816 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 52816 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. CHIKKANARAYANAPPA @ NARAYANI S/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS 2. SRI.GOPALAKRISHNA S/O CHIKKANARAYNAPPA @ NARAYANI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 3. SRI NEELAKANTA S/O CHIKKANARAYNAPPA @ NARAYANI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS PETITIONER NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/A MUTHARAYASWAMY TEMPLE STREET, SHESGIRIHALLI, HEJJALA POST, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT -560 053 4. SMT.LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE T.V.ASHOKKUMMAR D/O CHIKKANARAYNAPPA @ NARAYANI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS NO.14, KK LANE, 7TH CROSS COTTON PET, BANGALORE -560 053 5. SMT.SUNDRAMMA W/O NARAYNAPPA D/O CHIKKANARAYNAPPA @ NARAYANI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O CHANNAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE KODIYALA KARENHALLI POST, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1059 WP No. 52816 of 2017 6. SMT.SHANTHAMMA W/O SRI.VENKATESH D/O CHIKKANARAYNAPPA @ NARAYANI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/A KAVANAPURA VILLAGE KYLANCHA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. R HEMANTH RAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. GOVINDAPPA S/O LATE DODDANARAYNAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS 1A. SMT.RATHNAMMA W/O LATE GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 1B. SMT.SUMALATHA W/O SRI MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 1C. SRI.PRATAP S/O LATE GOVIDAPPA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS 1D. SRI PURUSHOTHAMA S/O LATE GOVIDAPPA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS THA PLAINTIFF 1(A) TO 1(D) ALL ARE R/A KALLIPALYA VILLAGE KODIALA, KARENHALLI DHAKALE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARAM TALUK AND DISTRICT -560 034 2. SRI.DODDA NARAYANAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 2A. SMT KENCHAMMA W/O LATE DODDNARAYNAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1059 WP No. 52816 of 2017 3. SRI. VENKATARAMANAPPA S/O DODDANARAYNAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 4. SRI.NARASIMHAIAH S/O DODDANARAYANPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 5. SMT.GOWRAMMA D/O DODDANARAYNAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESPONDENT 1TO 4 ARE R/A KALLIPALYA VILLAGE, KODIALA KARENHALLI DHAKALE BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARAM TALUK AND DISTRICT -560 034 6. JANARDHAN SINCE DEAD BY LRS 6A. SRI.SUDRSHAN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O JANARDHAN 6B. SRI RAVI S/O LATE JANARDHAN AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS THE RESPONDENT NO.5(A) TO 5(B) ARE R/A NO.63, EAT STREETT, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE -560 004 7. SMT.RANGAMMA W/O LATE THIMMIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/A HEJJALA VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANGARA TALUK & DISTRICT- 450 056 8. SMT.LAKSHMAMMA W/O SRI KUMAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/A BIDRAHALLI VILLAGE KONNANUR ARAKALAGUDU TALUK - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1059 WP No. 52816 of 2017 HASSAN DISTRICT -560 023 9. SMT.PUTTAMMA W/O SRI KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/A K.G.GOLLARAPALYA BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT- 450 023 10. SMT.BHAGYAMMA W/O SRI.SOMANNA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/A KANNAMMAHALLIBYLU, BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT -450 067 11. SMT.MUDDAMMA W/O SRI NARASIMHA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/A GANGASANDRA VILLAGE KENGEIR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK -560 002 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.C.RAVIKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (A-D) SRI.B.S.KRISHNA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4 SRI.R.VISHWANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R6 (A & B) R2(A) SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED V/O/D 25.06.2021, NOTICE TO R/O IS HELD SUFFICIENT R7 & R8 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED V/O/D 15.10.2024 NOTICE TO R9 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O/D 14.11.2024 NOTICE TO R5 & R11 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE QUASH THE ORDER DATED: 17.10.2017 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT RAMANAGARA IN O.S.NO.284/2005 VIDE ANNEXURE-M BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1059 WP No. 52816 of 2017 CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A. in O.S.No.284/2005 dated 17.10.2017 by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ramanagar filed by the petitioner herein under Order 1 Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 of CPC, the proposed defendants are before this Court. 2. It is the case of the proposed defendants that the suit schedule property was orally partitioned between the proposed defendants and the plaintiff and other defendants and they were enjoying the property in their individual capacity. Initially, the properties which belong to the implead parties, were not included. Later, when the implead parties properties were included, he had filed an I.A. seeking to implead himself, which came to be dismissed in the year 2014. Thereafter, the present application came to be filed. According to the proposed party, the reason for filing this application is that, the compromise decree passed was set aside by the Appellate Court and remanded the matter at the instance of the proposed party’s sister where the Appellate Court had directed the Trial Court to decide the matter on merits and he is a party to that - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1059 WP No. 52816 of 2017 proceedings. In view of the same, he has to be impleaded in this petition. 3. By way of the impugned order, the Trial Court had dismissed the application. While dismissing the application, the Trial Court had observed that similar applications are filed by the proposed defendant and his sons which were dismissed and the same was not questioned. It is stated that under the changed circumstances, due to remanding O.S.No.141/2009 they have filed this petition. Further, the Trial Court observed that the plaintiff claiming share in defendant No.1 property and as contented by the applicant item Nos.2 and 4 properties stands in the name of the applicant. Suit of the plaintiff on such properties could be dismissed. The Trial Court further observed that the applicants are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. Further, the suit is filed in the year 2005, which is more than 12 years old and the present application was filed when the case was posted for arguments. If the application is allowed, it would lead to further delay and accordingly, dismissed the application. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1059 WP No. 52816 of 2017 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/ proposed defendants submits that the Trial Court ought to have allowed the application as one of the schedule properties was partitioned long back and it is in possession of the petitioners. The First Appellate Court had remanded the matter where the rights of the parties will be adjudicated and the petitioners are the proper and necessary parties to the present suit. He submits that if both the suits are not clubbed together, it may lead to conflicting judgments and it would not be in the interest of the parties. The reasoning given by the Trial Court is not a sound reasoning and it is contrary to law on facts. 5. This matter came up before this Court on 09.01.2025. On that day, this Court had heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in part. There was no representation on behalf of the respondents. For giving an opportunity to the respondents, the matter was listed today under the caption “part heard”. Today also there is no representation on behalf of the respondents. As this writ petition is of the year 2017, this Court is inclined to proceed with the matter on the merits of it. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1059 WP No. 52816 of 2017 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The proposed applicant and his family have already filed applications before the Trial Court to implead themselves as defendants to the suit. That came to be dismissed long back. The same was not questioned by the proposed parties. Under the guise of an order passed by the Appellate Court remanding the matter, the present application came to be filed. The compromise decree was questioned by one of the parties and that was remanded by the Appellate Court and to decide the same on merits of it, it cannot be considered as the changed circumstances to the petitioners to file this application. The petitioners, when they failed to question an order passed by the Trial Court or dismissing the application seeking their impleadment, they cannot come up before the Trial Court with successive applications. To protect their interest they have already filed a suit. Further, if they feel that both the suits have to be clubbed together, their remedy is elsewhere but not before this Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Trial Court had rightly dismissed the application and this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:1059 WP No. 52816 of 2017 well considered order passed by the court. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As., in this writ petition, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1