- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6347 WP No. 31366 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 31366 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI B M RAMAKRISHNA S/O. MASEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 211 GANGANAGARA, ARCHAKARA BADAVANE HOSA BYROHALLI, SULIKERE POST KENGERI HOBLI-560 060 BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ASHOK B PATIL.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI J N JNANABHARATI W/O. RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT JANATHA COLONY PUNUGAMARANAHALLI TAVAREKERE HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-562 130. 2. SMT. P. R. MENAKA W/O. B. C. JAGADEESH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 69/4,2ND MAIN ROAD Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6347 WP No. 31366 of 2024 3RD CROSS, BYATARAYANAPURA MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 092. 3. SHRI. P. M. REVANNA S/O. LATE MUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 4. P. R. ATMANANDA S/O. P. M. REVANNA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 5. P. R. RAVIKUMAR S/O. P. M. REVANNA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R3 TO R5 ARE R/AT PUNUGMARANAHALLY TAVAREKERE HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK-562 130. 6. HANUMANTHA RAO SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS., SMT. SHARADAMMA W/O. LATE HANUMANTHA RAO AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS 7. SRI. NANDEESH KATE S/O. LATE HANUMANTHA RAO AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R6 & R7 ARE R/AT CHIKKALLUR CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 160. 8. G. SHIVASHANKAR NAIDU AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS NO. 10, 34TH CROSS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6347 WP No. 31366 of 2024 MALLIGE THOTA, CHOLUR PALYA MAGADI ROAD,BENGALURU-560 023. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LEELADHAR H P.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2: NOTICE TO R3 TO R8 ARE DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 23.11.2024 ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10/06/2024 (ANNEXURE-N), PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI ON IA NO. VII, IN OS NO.356/2013 AND DIRECT THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDE AND JMFC, MAGADI, TO TAKE ON RECORD THE APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XII RULE 6 CPC (ANNEXURE-P) FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OS NO. 356/2013 AND DECIDE THE SAME ON MERITS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed by the defendant No.6 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 10.06.2024 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Magadi on IA No.VII and also the order - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6347 WP No. 31366 of 2024 dated 08.11.2024 on IA No.XII in O.S.No.356/2013, both filed under Order VI Rule 17, whereby the trial court allowed the applications. 2. The case of the plaintiffs is that, the suit item No.1 was sold by father of the plaintiffs in favour of defendant No.4 on 28.05.2001. Therefore, they made defendant No.4 as a party to the suit. In the meantime, defendant No.4 executed a sale agreement dated 03.07.2013 in favour of defendant No.6. The defendant No.6 filed an application to implead himself as a party in the suit. The application was allowed and he has been impleaded as defendant No.6. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed IA No.VII under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC on 03.01.2024. The petitioner/defendant No.6 filed a detailed objection to the application stating that the plaintiffs by way of amendment are seeking that the sale deed dated 28.05.2001 is not binding on them and the same is barred by limitation. He has also filed a specific objection that when the plaintiffs filed a suit in the year 2013, they were aware of the sale deed dated - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6347 WP No. 31366 of 2024 28.05.2001, after 11 years they have filed this application. The same is barred by limitation. They sought a relief to declare that the sale deed is not binding on them. Ultimately, the relief is to declare the sale deed as null and void. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.6 submits that as per Article 109 of the Limitation Act, within 12 years from the date of alienating they have to file a suit. The application is filed after 24 years after the sale. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs has contended that as of today, the possession is not with the petitioner/defendant No.6. 5. Even, the petitioner has relied on the judgments of this Court in the case of M/S.METROPOLI OVERESEAS LIMITED vs. SRI H.S.DEEKSHIT AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2022 Kar.2231 and in the case of H.M.RUDRARADHYA vs. UMA AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2014 Kar.1293 to contend that even though the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6347 WP No. 31366 of 2024 prayer sought to declare that the sale deed is not binding on the plaintiffs, the limitation is applicable. The trial court, while passing the order, has not considered this aspect of the matter. The impugned order passed by the trial court is not a speaking order. On this ground alone, the writ petition has to be allowed. 6. Accordingly, the following order is passed: (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The order, dated 10.06.2024 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Magadi on IA No.VII and also the order dated 08.11.2024 on IA No.XII in O.S.No.356/2013, both filed under Order VI Rule 17 are set aside. (iii) The trial court is directed to re-consider IA Nos. VII and XII afresh, in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to both the parties. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6347 WP No. 31366 of 2024 (iv) All the contentions of the parties are left open. (v) In view of disposal of the main petition, all pending applications stand disposed of. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59