- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11576 WP No. 106523 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 106523 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SHRI RACHAPPA S/O. VEERABHADRAPPA HATARAKI SINCE DECEASED BY LRS., SMT. CHANNABASAVVA W/O. NAGAPPA BHADRASHETTI, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. LAKAMAPUR, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HEMANTHKUMAR L. HAVARAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI. DYAMAPPA S/O. ULVAPPA HATARAKI SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S., 1. SMT. GANGAWWA W/O. DYAMAPPA HATARAKI AGE: 78 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. DEVAGIRI MAHAL, NARENDRA, TQ& DIST. DHARWAD. 2. SHRI IRAPPA S/O. DYAMAPPA HATARAKI AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. DEVAGIRI MAHAL, NARENDRA, TQ& DIST. DHARWAD. 3. KUMARI NEELAWWA D/O. DYAMAPPA HATARAKI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLDWORK, Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dhrawad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11576 WP No. 106523 of 2025 R/O. DEVAGIRI MAHAL, NARENDRA, TQ& DIST. DHARWAD. 4. KUMAR UDAY S/O DYAMAPPAHATARAKI AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. DEVAGIRI MAHAL, NARENDRA, TQ& DIST. DHARWAD. SMT. BASAVVA W/O BASAALINGAPPA GUNDAGOVI SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S 5.SHRI DANAPPA S/O BASALINGAPPA GUNDAGOVI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. KURABAGATTI, TQ& DIST. DHARWAD. 6. SHRI SHRISHAILAPPA S/O. BASALINGAPPA GUNDAGOVI, AGE: MAJOR,OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O KURABAGATTI, TQ& DIST. DHARWAD. 7. SMT. BHADRAVVA S/O BASALINGAPPA GUNDAGOVI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KURABAGATTI, TQ & DIST. DHARWAD. SMT. RUDRAVVA W/O. CHANNAPPA GUNDAGOVI, SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S., 8. SMT. SAROJINI W/O. ASHOK KORI, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KURABAGATTI, TQ & DIST. DHARWAD. 9. SMT. ANJANA W/O. NAGAPPA KORI, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SIDDARODHA COLONY, MADIHAL, DHARWAD. TQ & DIST. DHARWAD. 10. SMT. RATNAVVA W/O. BASAPPA INGALAGI, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KURABAGATTI, TQ & DIST. DHARWAD. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11576 WP No. 106523 of 2025 11. SMT. KALLAPPA S/O. RATNAPPA KORI, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KURABAGATTI, TQ & DIST. DHARWAD. 12. SMT. SHANTAVVA PATIL AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KURABAGATTI, TQ & DIST. DHARWAD. SHRI VIRUPAKSHAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA HATARAKI, SINCE DECEASED, BUT THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT TAKEN A LR’S OF DEFENDANT NO.4 BROUGHT ON RECORDS. (DEFENDANT NO.4) VEERASANGAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA HOSAMANI, SINCE DECEASED BUT THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT TAKEN A LR’S OF DEFENDANT NO.5 BROUGHT ON RECORDS DEFENDANT NO.4) SMT. SHIVAVVA W/O. PARAPPA GUNDAGOVI (DIED WITHOUT ISSUES) (NO LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE) DEFENDANT NO.6 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIJAYKUMAR MALALI, ADVOCATE FOR R4; NOTICE TO OTHER RESPONDENTS IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ORDER 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, A. A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO THE SET-ASIDE AN ORDER ON IA NO. 55, DATED. 12/08/2025, AN ORDER ON IA NO. 56, DATED. 12/08/2025, AND AN ORDER ON IA NO. 57, DATED. 02/09/2025, PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM COURT, DHARWAD IN OS NO. 46/1982, VIDE - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11576 WP No. 106523 of 2025 ANNEXURE-D, F AND H RESPECTIVELY, AND ALLOWED THE APPLICATIONS AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeks the following reliefs: a) writ of certiorari to set aside the orders dated 12.08.2025 (I.A. No. 55 & I.A. No. 56) and 02.09.2025 (I.A. No. 57), passed by the learned II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM Court, Dharwad, in O.S. No. 46/1982 (Annexures D, F, and H), which dismissed the said applications. b) Issue any other writ, order, or direction as deemed fit in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The petitioner has challenged the dismissal of I.A.Nos.55, 56, and 57 in O.S.No.46/1982, which was filed for partition and separate possession. The original suit was decreed on 19.04.2003 and challenged in R.A. No. 172/2003, which was disposed of by the First Appellate Court on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11576 WP No. 106523 of 2025 18.11.2017, remanding the matter to the Trial Court for fresh disposal within one year. The remand was necessitated as the shares of all parties were not ascertained, and the Appellate Court sought to avoid multiplicity of litigation by directing determination of the rights and shares of all parties. 3. The said judgment in R.A. No. 172/2003 was challenged by the plaintiffs in MSA No. 100156/2017 and by defendant No. 1 in MSA No. 100003/2018. Both MSAs were subsequently withdrawn on 24.07.2024 and 30.01.2024 respectively. 4. Following this, the present petitioner, who is defendant No.1(B), filed three interlocutory applications before the Trial Court i.e. I.A. No. 55 for impleadment of certain purchasers, I.A. No. 56 for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased defendant No.5, and I.A. No. 57 to recall the plaintiffs’ witnesses for cross-examination in light of subsequent developments. All three applications were dismissed, leading to the present writ petition. Respondent No. 4 is represented through caveat; notice to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11576 WP No. 106523 of 2025 the remaining respondents is dispensed with in view of the proposed order to be passed. 5. The petitioner's counsel submits that the purchasers sought to be impleaded in I.A. No. 55 are necessary parties, as they may be affected by the final outcome of the suit. With respect to I.A. No. 56, it is submitted that the legal heirs of defendant No.5 ought to be brought on record. As regards I.A. No. 57, the petitioner seeks recall of the plaintiffs’ witnesses for cross-examination in light of alleged subsequent events. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the papers, it is seen that it is only the purchasers who are sought to be brought on record by I.A. No. 55. It is trite law that a purchaser in a suit for partition is not a necessary party if such purchase has been made during the pendency of the suit, attracting Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. If at all any rights have to be worked out, the same could be worked out in the final decree proceedings. As such, I do not find any infirmity in the order dismissing I.A. No. 55. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11576 WP No. 106523 of 2025 7. Insofar as I.A. No. 56 is concerned it has been dismissed on the ground that there is a delay of 1967 days in bringing the legal heirs of defendant No. 5 on record, there being no proper explanation. I do not find any infirmity in the said order also delay being of more than 6 years. 8. Insofar as I.A. No. 57 is concerned, again, I do not find any infirmity in the dismissal of the said application. Firstly, for the reason that even in the said application, it has not been mentioned as to which witness the petitioner proposes to recall since there were two witnesses who had led evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs. That apart, and more importantly, the remand had been made only for the purpose of determining the shares of all the parties. There would be no requirement for any further cross-examination to be done, more so when the plaintiffs have not led any further evidence. 9. Thus, in my considered opinion, all the three applications had been filed by the petitioner only to protract the proceedings and for no other purpose. There being a time- bound disposal order passed in R.A. No.172 of 2003, which - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11576 WP No. 106523 of 2025 has long elapsed, in that view and in view of the above, no case being made out, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE VB Ct:pa List No.: 3 Sl No.: 5