- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6516 WP No. 102870 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 102870 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NAGAVVA W/O KANAKAPPA HANAMAR, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: TOLAMATTI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587 116. 2. SMT. MALLAVVA W/O KARIYAPPA KILLARI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: SHEGUNASI-586 125, TQ: AND DIST: VIJAYPUR. 3. SMT. TAYAVVA W/O. PARASAPPA HANAMAR, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: RAMANAHALLI, TQ: MUNDARAGI, DIST: GADAG-582 118. 4. SHRI. HANAMANTH S/O MUDAKAPPA KAYANNAVAR, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: TOLAMATTI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587 116. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SOURABH MIRJE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHIVRAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI PARASAPPA S/O SOMAPPA KILLARI, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6516 WP No. 102870 of 2022 AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SHEGUNASHI-586 125, TQ: AND DIST: VIJAYAPUR, NOW CLAIMING TO BE RESIDING AT TUMARAMATTI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587 116. 2. SMT. KAMALAVVA W/O SOMAPPA HANGARAGI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KILLARI, TQ: AND DIST: VIJAYPUR. 3. SHRI GIRIYAPPA S/O MUDAKAPPA @ SHIVALINGAPPA KAYANNAVAR, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: TOLAMATTI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587 116. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANTOSH B.MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 TO R3-DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Sourabh Mirje, counsel on behalf of Sri.Shivaraj S. Balloli, for the petitioners and Sri.Santosh B. Mane, counsel for respondent No.1, appeared in person. 2. For convenience's sake, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6516 WP No. 102870 of 2022 3. The short facts are these: The plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.40/2010 seeking the relief of a declaration and permanent injunction. The suit came to be dismissed on 25.02.2019. Against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, they preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the first defendant, Chandrawwa (first respondent in R.A.No.12/2019), died. The applicant contended that Chandrawwa had executed a registered Will in his favor on 04.11.2011 and thus applied to come on record under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of CPC. The plaintiff contested the application by filing objections. The Appellate Court vide order dated 07.04.2022 allowed the application. Under these circumstances, the petitioners are before this Court. 4. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. The counsel for the petitioners has taken a specific contention that the order passed by the Appellate Court is in violation of the mandatory provisions of Rule 5 of Order 22 of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6516 WP No. 102870 of 2022 CPC, which mandates an inquiry to be conducted by the Trial Court in case of disputed legal representatives. The main argument in the present case is centered around summary inquiry as contemplated under Order 22 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. Extracting Order 22 Rule 5 of CPC is helpful in indicating the right approach. “ORDER 22 RULE 5. DETERMINATION OF QUESTION AS TO LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE - Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or a deceased defendant, such question shall be determined by the Court: Provided that where such question arises before an Appellate Court, that Court may, before determining the question, direct any subordinate Court to try the question, and to return the records together with evidence, if any, recorded at such trial, its findings and reasons therefore, and the Appellate Court may take the same into consideration in determining the question.” A bare perusal of the above provision makes it clear that when a question as to whether a person is a legal representative or not is raised, it has to be determined by - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6516 WP No. 102870 of 2022 holding a summary inquiry. The inquiry under the Order is summary in character. Reverting to the facts of the case, the first respondent, Chandrawwa, died during the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court ought to have directed the Trial Court to try the question and to hold a summary inquiry as contemplated under Order 22 Rule 5 of CPC. Instead, the Appellate Court has straight away allowed the application and permitted the applicant to come on record. This is unsustainable in law. Therefore, the order passed by the Appellate Court is liable to be quashed. 5. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated 07.04.2022 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bilagi, Bagalkot on I.A.Nos.2 to 4 in R.A.No.12/2019 vide Annexure-A is quashed. The Appellate Court is hereby directed to adhere to Order 22 Rule 5 of CPC and send the application to the Trial Court to hold an enquiry and record its findings. 6. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6516 WP No. 102870 of 2022 Because of the disposal of the Writ Petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of, and the interim order, if any, granted by this Court stands discharged. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP,RH LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 38