- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1793 WP No. 52831 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 52831 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. MUNEMMA, D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, W/O SRI. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT SIDDANAHALLI VILLAGE, BYRAKUR POST, KASABA HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K. MURTHY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. NAGESH, S/O SEENAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 2. SMT. RADHAMMA, D/O SEENAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, 3. SRI. KEMPANNA, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, 4. SRI. SEENAPPA, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1793 WP No. 52831 of 2019 RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT KADARIPURA VILLAGE, KURUDUMALE GRAMAPANCHAYATH, KASABA HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131. 5. SRI. M.G. BINDUMADHAVA RAO, S/O LATE M.R. GOPALAKRISHNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT RANABERAMMA TEMPLE STREET, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131. …RESPONDENTS (R1 TO R5 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-A THE ORDER ON IA NO.2 UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10 OF CPC DATED 25.11.2019 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MULBAGAL IN FDP NO.20/2012 AND ALLOW IA NO.2 AS PRAYED BY ALLOWING THIS WP AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1793 WP No. 52831 of 2019 ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the orders passed in I.A.No.2 filed under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC in F.D.P.No.20/2012 dated 25.11.2019, the implead party is before this Court. 2. The respondents herein have filed a suit for partition and the same was decreed. Thereafter, the Final Decree Proceedings were initiated. It is the case of the implead party that the property belongs to the joint family and without making her as a party, the respondents herein has filed suit for partition and according to her, a fraud has been played by the plaintiff in the said suit and in fact, according to her, she has instituted another suit wherein the decree holders are also parties to the said suit and the same is pending consideration before the Competent Court. As such, she is a proper and necessary party to the present Final Decree Proceedings. 3. The Executing Court had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner herein holding that in RTC extracts, it is shown that the property is long back partitioned among the members of the joint family and the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and further, it is observed that the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1793 WP No. 52831 of 2019 Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree and cannot decide the rights of the impleading party or the Court cannot decide the legality or otherwise of the judgment and decree which has attained finality. The Court has also observed that the remedy of the petitioner/proposed implead party is to question the judgment and decree passed and accordingly dismissed the application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC. . 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when fraud is played on the Court and without even making the parties, who are the members of the joint family, when the judgment and decree is obtained and particularly, when the other suit is pending in respect of the very same property, the Court ought to have allowed the application as she is a proper and necessary party. He submits that the Court failed to consider the particular facts and circumstances of the case and if he is not implead, injustice would be caused to the petitioner. He submits that the writ petition has to be allowed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1793 WP No. 52831 of 2019 5. Though notice is served on the respondents, no vakalath is filed. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the material on record. The undisputed facts are that the suit that is filed by the respondents is decreed and preliminary decree is passed and that has attained finality. Thereafter Final Decree Proceedings were initiated. Now in the Final Decree Proceedings, the petitioner wants to implead herself on the ground that the property is the joint family property. Whatever is the nature of property, now the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree and decide the rights of the petitioner. As rightly observed by the Court that the remedy of the petitioner is not before the Executing Court, but she is supposed to question the judgment and decree or obtain necessary orders in the pending suit where she is the plaintiff. As rightly observed by the Court petitioner is not a proper and necessary party to the Final Decree Proceedings. Hence, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1793 WP No. 52831 of 2019 ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is dismissed. (ii) All IA., in this writ petition shall stand closed. (iii) The petitioner is at liberty to question the judgment and decree provided that is with in the law of limitation and in accordance with law. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54 CT: BHK