- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41528 WP No. 28181 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 28181 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI A.MUNIREDDY, S/O LATE ASHWATHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT AMMAGARAHALLI VILLAGE, BASHETIHALLI HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK - 562 105. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVASAN T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT SUNANDA, W/O CHANDRASHEKAR, D/O LATE GOWRAMMA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO. 93/5, TEMPLE ROAD, RBD LAYOUT, JUNNASANDRA SARJAPURA ROAD, BENGLAURU - 560 035. 2. SRI. KEMPANNA, SO LATE GOKARE PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 3. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA, W/O KEMPANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 4. SRI. K MURALIDHAR, S/O KEMPANNA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41528 WP No. 28181 of 2023 RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ARE R/AT JATHAVAREDAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDHI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK - 562 101. 5. SMT. RATHNAMMA, W/O LATE ASHWATHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 6. SRI. CHANNAKESHAVA, S/O LATE ASHWATHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 7. SRI. SANTHOSH, S/O LATE ASHWATHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESPONDENT 5 TO 7 ARE R/AT NEAR COCOON MARKET, VAPASANDRA, 2ND WARD, CHIKKABALLAPUR TOWN - 562 101. 8. SRI. N RAMESH, S/O C.S NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT SABBENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK - 562 101. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER GRANTING THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS. QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.10.23 PASSED ON THE APPLICATION IN IA NO.8 FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(6) OF CPC BY THE 2ND ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHIKKABALLAPUR IN O.S.NO.169/2017 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISSED APPLICATION AND ETC., - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41528 WP No. 28181 of 2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER Plaintiff is before this court in this petition filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order dated 31.10.2023, passed on I.A.No.8 filed by respondent No.1 herein under Order I Rule 10(6) of CPC in O.S.No.169/2017. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 3. Petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.169/2017 before the Jurisdictional Civil Court seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. Smt.Gowramma, mother of respondent No.1, was defendant No.5 in the said suit. After the death of defendant No.5, on the application filed by the petitioner, respondent No.1 herein was brought on record as the legal representative of deceased defendant No.5 and was treated as defendant No.5(a) in the suit. Subsequently, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41528 WP No. 28181 of 2023 petitioner had filed a memo before the Trial Court with a prayer to dismiss the suit as not pressed, stating that he was not intending to continue the suit. The said memo was opposed by respondent No.1 by filing objections and she also filed application in I.A.No.8 under Order I Rule 10(6) read with Section 151 of CPC with a prayer to transpose her as plaintiff No.2 and permit her to prosecute the suit. The said application was opposed by the petitioner by filing objections. The Trial Court vide the order impugned has allowed I.A.No.8 and being aggrieved by the same petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that the Trial Court was not justified in allowing the prayer made in I.ANo.8. Respondent No.1 has no right or title in the suit schedule property. It is always open for respondent No.1 to file a separate suit and seeks partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties, if she is interested. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41528 WP No. 28181 of 2023 5. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.168/2017 which is filed seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. It is not in dispute that Smt.Gowramma, who is the mother of respondent No.1 herein was party defendant No.5 in the said suit. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.5 Smt.Gowramma had died. Thereafter, petitioner had filed I.A.No.5 under Order XXII Rule 4 of CPC to bring the respondent No.1 on record in the suit as the legal representative of deceased defendant No.5. It is specifically contented by the petitioner in the said application that respondent No.1 herein is the daughter of deceased defendant No.5. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court and respondent No.1 was permitted to be brought on record as the legal representative of deceased defendant No.5 and respondent No.1 was treated as defendant No.5(a) in O.S.No.169/2017. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41528 WP No. 28181 of 2023 6. Thereafter petitioner had filed a memo before the Trial Court stating that he was not intending to prosecute the suit and accordingly prayed to dismiss the suit as not pressed. This application was opposed by respondent No.1 by filing a detailed objection, contending that she has got a share in the suit schedule property which is required to be determined and accordingly had prayed to dismiss the memo. Thereafter, she also has filed I.A.No.8 under Order I Rule 10(6) read with Section 151 of CPC with a prayer to transpose her as plaintiff No.2 and permit her to prosecute the suit. The said application is supported by her affidavit wherein she has clearly stated that her mother Smt.Gowramma is entitled for 1/4th share in the suit schedule property and her rights are therefore required to be adjudicated in the present suit. It is trite that all parties in a suit for partition are considered as a plaintiff and since the original plaintiff who is the petitioner herein has stated that he is not interested in prosecuting the suit, there is no harm in permitting respondent No.1 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41528 WP No. 28181 of 2023 herein to prosecute the suit which is filed for partition and separate possession in year 2007. The trial Court was therefore fully justified in allowing the application I.A.No.8 filed by respondent No.1 herein and I do not find any reasons to interfere with the said order. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KVR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19