- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6074 WP No. 108585 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.108585 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. THE PRESIDENT MILLATH EDUCUATIONIAL INSTITUION, MASUR, AT: MASUR, TQ: RATTIHALLI, DIST: HAVERI, BY ITS PRESIDENT, NAJEERSAB S/O. ABDULNABISAB HUBBALLI, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MASUR, TQ: RATTIHALLI, DIS: HAVERI. 2. THE SECRETARY MILLATH EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, MASUR, AT: MASUR, TQ: RATTIHALLI, DIST: HAVERI, BY ABDULWAYEED @ WAHEED S/O ABDULSAMMADSAB, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MASUR, TQ: RATTIHALLI, DIST: HAVERI. 3. HUSSAINABI W/O. ISMAILSAB YELLAPUR AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: SANGAMESHWARA NAGAR, MADINA MASJID ROAD, BYADGI, TQ: BYADGI, DIST: HAVERI. 4. MOBINABANAU W/O. ABDULWAHID KHAN AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER, R/O: SANGAMESHWARA NAGAR, NEAR MADINA MASJID, BYADGI, TQ: BYADGI, DIST: HAVERI. 5. ALTAF S/O. ISMAILSAB YELLAPUR Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.04.09 11:27:30 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6074 WP No. 108585 of 2019 AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SANGAMESHWARA NAGAR, NEAR MADINA MASJID, BYADGI, TQ: BYADGI, DIST: HAVERI. 6. IMRAN S/O. ISMAILSAB YELLAPUR AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SANGAMESHWARA NAGAR, NEAR MADINA MASJID, BYADGI, TQ: BYADGI, DIST: HAVERI. 7. MUSTAQ S/O. ISMAILSAB YELLAPUR AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SANGAMESHWARA NAGAR, NEAR MADINA MASJID, BYADGI, TQ: BYADGI, DIST: HAVERI. PETITIONER NO.3 TO 7 ARE THE LRS OF ISMAILSAB CHAMANSAB YELLAPUR, R/O: MASUR, TQ: RATTIHIALLI, DIST: HAVERI. 8. IMTIYAJ @ INTIYAJ S/O. ABDULKARIM PATEL AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MASUR, TQ: RATTIHALLI, DIST: HAVERI. 9. WAYEED @ WAHEED S/O. ABDULSAMMASAB S/O ABDULSAMMAD, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MASUR, TQ: RATTIHALLI, DIST: HAVERI. 10. KALEEL S/O. HASANMIYSAB MULLA AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MASUR, TQ: RATTIHALLI, DIST: HAVERI. 11. WAJEERSAB S/O. NANNESAB ANGARAGATTI AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MASUR, TQ: RATTIHALLI, DIST: HAVERI. 12. BABU @ MADARSAB S/O. JAMALUDDINASAB ARALIKATTI, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6074 WP No. 108585 of 2019 AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MASUR, TQ: RATTIHALLI, DIST: HAVERI. 13. HIDAYATULLA S/O. ABDULSAMMADSAB YELLAPUR AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MASUR, TQ: RATTIHALLI, DIST: HAVERI. 14. AZAMKHAN S/O. AHAMMADKHAN DESAI AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: CRUSHER BUSINESS, R/O: MASUR, TQ: RATTIHALLI, DIST: HAVERI. 15. HIDAYATH S/O. VAZEERSAB ANGARAGATTI AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MASUR, TQ: RATTIHALLI, DIST: HAVERI. 16. MIRZA S/O. JAFRULLASAB HAVERI AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SUDHA HOTEL, SHIRALKOPPA, TQ: SHIKARIPUR, DIST: SHIVAMOGGA. 17. SAMEEULLA S/O. NANNESAB MALLUR AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MASUR, TQ: RATTIHALLI, DIST: HAVERI. 18. SHAHANAWAZ S/O. ABDULSAMMAD HUBBALLI AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MASUR, TQ: RATTIHALLI, DIST: HAVERI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P.G.MOGALI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. AKBARKHAN S/O. WAHABKHAN KIRADANI AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, CLAIMS TO BE THE VICE PRESIDENT OF MILLATH EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, MASUR, R/O: MASUR, TQ: RATTIHALLI, DIST: HAVERI. 2. ABDUL JABBAR S/O. WAHASAB KIRADANI AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6074 WP No. 108585 of 2019 CLAIMS TO BE MEMBER OF MILLATH EDUCATINAL INISTITION, MASUR, R/O: MASUR, TQ: RATTIHALLI, DIST: HAVERI. 3. KALIMULLA S/O. AJIMSAB SOMALAPUR AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, CLAIMS TO BE MEMBER OF MILLATH EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, R/O: MASUR, TQ: RATTIHALLI, DIST: HAVERI. 4. AYUBKHAN S/O. HAYATHKHAN KENCHAYIKOPPA AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, CLAIMS TO BE MEMBER OF MILLATH EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, R/O: MASUR, TQ: RATTIHALLI, DIST: HAVERI. 5. ABDULSATTARSAB S/O. REHAMANSAB MULLA AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, CLAIMS TO BE MEMBER OF MILLATH EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, R/O: MASUR, TQ: RATTIHALLI, DIST: HAVERI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.H.PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., HIREKERUR IN CIVIL MISC.NO.02/2016 DATED 18.03.2019 VIDE “ANNEXURE-G” AND REJECT THE I.A.NO.III FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 VIDE ANNEXURE-E DATED 28.02.2019, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6074 WP No. 108585 of 2019 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioners-defendants assailing the order of the trial Court on an impleading application filed in I.A.No.III seeking leave of the Court to implead the plaintiffs, who had not joined initially to seek restoration of the suit filed in O.S.No.313/2010. The said application is allowed and plaintiffs, who were left out were permitted to come on record as petitioners, to seek restoration of the suit that was dismissed for not bringing the legal heirs of deceased defendant on record. 2. Though learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently argued and tried to persuade this Court that impleading application could not have been entertained by the Court in Civil Misc.2/2016, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case where a hyper technical approach could have been adopted by the learned Judge. The plaintiffs have filed a suit seeking the relief of declaration and injunction in O.S.No.313/2010. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6074 WP No. 108585 of 2019 The said suit was dismissed as plaintiffs failed to bring legal heirs of one of the deceased defendant on record. 3. Plaintiffs No.3 to 5 had promptly taken steps to seek restoration of the suit by filing an application, namely Civil Misc. No.2/2016, within the prescribed time. However, Plaintiffs No.1 and 2, for reasons not adequately explained, did not initially associate themselves with the said application. This omission on their part does reflect a degree of negligence or laxness. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the suit was already sought to be revived by some of the plaintiffs, and the interests of the plaintiffs were, to a large extent, represented by Plaintiffs No.3 to 5, who had invoked the relevant provisions and had sought restoration of suit. 4. In this background, the learned Trial Judge, while considering the application for restoration, exercised judicial discretion in permitting Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 to join the proceedings at a later stage. This decision appears to be guided by the broader principle of doing substantial - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6074 WP No. 108585 of 2019 justice rather than adhering to a strict technical interpretation of procedural requirements. This Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the learned Trial Judge does not suffer from any material irregularity or legal infirmity that would warrant interference in revision. 5. Furthermore, it is significant to observe that no serious prejudice has been caused to the defendants by such indulgence being shown to Plaintiffs No.1 and 2. Since Plaintiffs No.3 to 5 had already taken timely steps to restore the suit, the restoration proceedings were validly initiated and were already under the consideration of the Court. The inclusion of Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 at a later stage only served to reinforce the unity of the plaintiffs' case and did not alter the substantive position of the proceedings. 6. Therefore, in the interest of justice and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings or unnecessary hardship, the learned Trial Judge acted within the bounds of sound - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6074 WP No. 108585 of 2019 judicial discretion in allowing the application for restoration. Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order and declines to grant any indulgence in this matter. 7. Writ petition being devoid of merits stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE AM/- Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27