1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.7350 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. VASUGI W/O SRI R.UMAPATHI AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.256, 9TH ‘B’ MAIN ROAD, 2ND ‘C’ CROSS, KALYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 043. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.P.VENKATA RAMANNA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SRI R UMAPATHI S/O LATE N RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NO 256, 9TH ‘B’ MAIN ROAD 2ND ‘C’ CROSS, KALYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 043 SRI Y BABU REDDY S/O YELLAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO VIJAYA BANK COLONY RAMAMURTHYNAGAR MAIN ROAD BANASWADI BENGALURU – 560043 2 . SRI M YERUKULA REDDY S/O LATE CHENNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/AT NO 96/2 8TH CROSS PRAKRUTHI LAYOUT HENNUR BENGALURU – 560043 2 3. SRI A MUNI REDDY S/O SRI APPAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS R/AT DODDA BANASWADI BANASAWADI POST BENGALURU - 560043 SINCE DEAD BY LRS SMT VANAJA MUNI REDDY W/O LATE A MUNI REDDY AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS R/AT DOWNSTAIR PORTION OF NO.256 9TH ‘E’ MAIN ROAD 2ND ‘C’ CROSS KALYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 043 4 . SRI M NANDAKUMAR S/O LATE A MUNI REDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT UPSTAIR PORTION OF LR NO.4(A) NO.256 9TH ‘E’ MAIN ROAD 2ND ‘C’ CROSS KALYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 043 5 . SRI M SHASHIDHAR S/O LATE A MUNI REDDY AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO 86 II CROSS TEMPLE ROAD DODDA BANASWADI BANASWADI POST BENGALURU – 560 043 6 . SRI M PRASANNA REDDY S/O LATE A MUNI REDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING ALONG WITH LR NO.4 (A) NO.256 9TH ‘E’ MAIN ROAD 2ND ‘C’ CROSS KALYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560043 3 7 . SMT M JAGADAMBA W/O SRI C HARSHAVARDHANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.1951 SOUTH END ROAD ’D’ CROSS 9TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 041 8 . SMT. I DHANALAKSHMI W/O SRI A JAYARAJ AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT NO.44 KAMARAJ ROAD BENGALURU – 560 042 9 . SMT VANAJA MUNI REDDY W/O LATE A MUNI REDDY AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS R/AT NO.256, 9TH ‘E’ MAIN ROAD 2ND ‘C’ CROSS KALYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 043. 10 . SRI M NANDAKUMAR S/O THE LATE A MUNI REDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO.256 9TH ‘E’ MAIN ROAD 2ND ‘C’ CROSS KALYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 043 …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R1 TO R8 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 20/04/2021, R9 AND R10 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1908, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 16.03.2021 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU ON MEMO DATED 16.03.2021 IN O.S.NO.183/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIIONER, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-‘A’ IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. 4 THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 18.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV ORDER 1. The present writ petition is filed to issue writ of certiorari quashing the Order dated 16.03.2021 in O.S.NO.183/2011 passed by the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, it is the case of the petitioner that she had filed P.Mis.No.01/2006 before the Family Court, Bengaluru under Section 141 read with Order XXXIII Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC seeking declaration and cancellation of sale deeds as an indigent person, which was allowed and O.S.No.183/2011 came to be registered. 3. Upon service of summons, some respondents were placed exparte, respondent No.1 though represented, did not file his written statement, and after the death of defendant No.4, his legal representatives were brought on record. Out of the contesting parties, only respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed their written statement. 4. During pendency of the suit, respondent No.2 died on 28.02.2021, and petitioner’s counsel filed a Memo dated 5 16.03.2021 seeking time to bring his legal representatives on record. The Court rejected the Memo holding that under Order XXII Rule 4(4) CPC, the legal representatives of the defendant who remained exparte need not be impleaded, and further observed that defendant No.2 had already sold the property to defendant Nos.6 and 7. The plaintiff was directed to amend the plaint by showing the death of defendant No.2 and proceed with cross-examination of DW1. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Court below erred in rejecting the Memo filed by the petitioner dated 16.03.2021 on the ground that defendant No.2 was exparte and had alienated the property to defendant Nos.6 and 7. The petitioner had not sought exemption from impleading but had specifically sought to bring his legal representatives on record, which the Court below ought to have permitted in view of the nature of the suit for declaration and cancellation of registered documents relating to immovable property. 6. It is also contended that, unless exemption is specifically sought, legal representatives ought to be impleaded. The refusal 6 has caused grave injustice and hardship to the petitioner, while no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the Memo was allowed. Hence, the rejection of the Memo dated 16.03.2021 is unsustainable in law and facts. 7. Being aggrieved by the Order dated 16.03.2021 passed by the III Addl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition. 8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondents though served, are unrepresented. 9. As could be seen from the impugned order dated 16.03.2021, it appears that counsel for the plaintiff filed a memo reporting the death of defendant No.2 dated 28.02.2021 and seeks time to bring his legal representatives on record. On receipt of the memo dated 16.03.2021, the Trial Court ordered that as seen from Order XXII Rule 4 (4) of CPC and it reads “the Court whenever it thinks fit, may exempt the plaintiff from the necessity of substituting the legal representatives of any such defendant who, having filed it, has failed to appear and contest the suit at the hearing, and judgment may, in such case, be pronounced against the said defendant notwithstanding the death of such 7 defendant and shall have the same force and effect as if it has been pronounced before the death of the appellants. When the provision itself is clear that the party who is not appearing before the Court and contesting the matter, his legal representatives, on his death need not be brought on record. In the present case, defendant No.2 has not appeared and he has already been placed exparte. Therefore, his legal representatives need not be brought on record and further, according to the submissions of counsel for defendant Nos.6 and 7, the defendant No.2 had already sold the property to the subsequent purchasers. Therefore, the legal representatives of defendant No.2 need not be brought on record and the plaintiff had to show that defendant No.2 is the deceased in the plaint. 10. In view of the above discussions, it is observed that the Trial Court has rejected the memo basing on the provision ie., under Order XXII Rule 4(4) of CPC and also on the ground that respondent No.2 was exparte and as such, his legal representatives need not be brought on record. Further, according to the submissions of defendant Nos.6 and 7, defendant No.2 had already sold the property to the subsequent purchasers. 8 11. Further, as seen from the provision under Order XXII Rule 4(4) of CPC, it lays down the procedure to be followed in case of death of one of the several plaintiffs, when the right to sue does not survive to the surviving plaintiff alone, or that of the sole plaintiff when the right to sue survives, or of the death of several defendants or sole defendant in similar circumstances. The procedure requires an application for making the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff or the defendant a party to the suit. On relying the judgment in Union of India Vs. Ramcharan, the Court held that the law laid down is clear. There seems to be a legal requirement that on the death of the defendant an application to the substitution in all cases has to be made by the plaintiff only and that, any application, made by the heir(s) / legal representatives of the deceased defendant seeking an order to allow him / them to step into the shoe of the deceased defendant and to contest the suit cannot be considered. Once, an application has been made by the either parties and the Court has been informed about the death of the party and who the heir(s) / legal representatives he has left behind, the only thing that remains for the Court is to pass an order substituting the heir(s) / legal representatives. It appears that as per the 9 procedure, after filing the memo by the plaintiff, the Court has to follow the procedure that (a) accepting the memo (b) directing to file an application to bring the legal representatives on record (c) on filing the application, notice has to be sent to the legal representatives. Then, on the appearance of the legal representatives, the Court has to pass appropriate orders on the application filed by the plaintiff that to allow the application or to reject the application. It appears that the Trial Court has not followed the proper procedure and rejected the memo dated 16.03.2021 on the information submitted by the plaintiff which is illegal and arbitrary and further, this Court relied on the judgment in Chinnammal Vs.P.Arumugham, wherein it is held that, “17. It is well to remember that the Code of Civil Procedure is a body of procedural law designed to facilitate justice and it should not be treated as an enactment providing for punishments and penalties. The Laws of procedure should be so construed as to render justice wherever reasonably possible. The justice oriented approach has to be followed in interpreting the provision of CPC is a well settled law.” 12. In my opinion, the law not having expressly mandated that an application for substitution has to be filed, the plaintiff upon 10 receiving the intimation of death, requiring a formal application from the plaintiff only will serve no tangible purpose. 13. In view of the above discussions, it is opined that the Trial Court has not followed and interpreted the procedure laid down under the law and rejected the memo dated 16.03.2021. Hence, the order dated 16.03.2021 passed by the Trial Court is hereby set-aside. 14. In view of the same, this Court has given the following directions: (a) The order dated 16.03.2021 rejecting the memo dated 16.03.2021 is set-aside. (b) The plaintiff is directed to bring the legal representatives on record by filing an application. (c) On filing of such an application, the Trial Court has to follow the procedure laid down in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (DR. K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE GH Ct-adp