- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1197 WP No. 100400 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.100400 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: ARUN S/O BASAVARAJ GOURIMATH AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS & AGRICULTURE, R/O GOTHE-587 330, TQ. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. KAVYA C. SHETTAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. C.S. SHETTAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BOURAWWA W/O CHANNAYYA MATH @ GANACHARI AGE. 80 YEARS, OCC. HOMEMAKER, R/O GOTHE-587 330, TQ. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT. 2. SUSHILA W/O BASAVARAJ GOURIMATH AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. HOMEMAKER, R/O GOTHE-587 330, TQ. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT. 3. MAHADEVI W/O SIDARAYYA HIREMATH AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O LIG-61 KHB COLONY, 4TH STAGE, NEAR RMP COLONY, KUVEMPU NAGAR, MYSORE-570 001. 4. SHOBHA W/O SANGAYYA HIREMATH AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. HOMEMAKER & AGRICULTURE, R/O DANESHWARI NILAY TIWARI CHAAL, LINE BAZAAR, DHARWAD-580001. 5. NEELABAI W/O VIDYADHAR MAMADAPUR AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC HOMEMAKER & AGRICULTURE, R/O VIRAKTA MATH COMPLEX, DEVI MEDICAL & GENERAL STORE, NEAR AMBABHAVANI TEMPLE, GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Date: 2025.01.24 16:37:14 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1197 WP No. 100400 of 2025 JORAPUR PETH, VIJAYAPUR-586 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHASHWATH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4; NOTICE TO R1-R3 AND R5 DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDERS PASSED BY ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT AT JAMKHANDI IN O.S.NO.88/2020 DATED 17-12-2024 ON APPLICATIONS FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 IN I.A.NO.23 FILED U/O. VIII RULE 8 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC AND I.A.NO.24 FILED U/O VI RULE 17 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND THEREBY DISMISS THE SAID APPLICATIONS, IN THE INTERST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. Notice to respondents No.1 to 3 and 5 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order to be passed. 2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: “A. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned common orders passed by Additional Senior Civil Judge Court at Jamkhandi in O.S.No.88/2020 dated 17-12-2024 on applications filed by Respondent No.4 in I.A.No.23 filed U/O. VIII rule 8 R/w Sec.151 of CPC and I.A.No.24 filed U/O VI Rule 17 R/w Sec.151 of CPC vide - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1197 WP No. 100400 of 2025 Annexure-J and thereby dismiss the said applications. B. Pass any other orders which this Hon’ble Court deems fit.” 3. The petitioner is defendant No.4 in the suit filed in O.S.No.88/2020, seeking for partition and separate possession. 4. In the said suit, defendant No.2 had filed an application under Order VIII Rule 8 R/w Section 151 of the Code Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') for production of certain documents, which came to be numbered as I.A.No.XXIII as also an application under Order VI Rule 17 R/w Section 151 of CPC, which came to be numbered as I.A.No.XXIV. By way of the application in I.A.No.XXIV, an amendment to the counterclaim was sought for and by way of I.A.No.XXIII, the documents in support of the amendment to the counterclaim were sought to be produced. 5. The contention in the amendment application is that certain properties had been purchased from the joint - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1197 WP No. 100400 of 2025 family properties by plaintiff No.2 in the name of daughter-in-law, who is the wife of defendant No.4. The trial Court allowed the said applications in order to provide a fair opportunity to establish the case of defendant No.2 in a counterclaim. 6. The submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the daughter-in-law in whose name the property is alleged to have been purchased is not a party to the suit and as such, the amendment could not have been allowed and the documents be brought on record. Whether the daughter-in-law is at present party to the proceedings or not, the defendants could always file necessary application to bring her on record and necessary reliefs’ sought for in relation thereto. 7. At present, an application has been filed to amend the counterclaim and produce documents, the same cannot be rejected on the ground that the daughter-in- law is not a party. In the event of the defendants not bringing the daughter-in-law as a party to the proceedings, no relief could be sought for against her - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1197 WP No. 100400 of 2025 and as such, same would not be binding on her, which the petitioner can always take advantage of. 8. With the above observations, no grounds being made out, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51