- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8644 CRP No. 100143 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100143 OF 2024 BETWEEN: VEERESH S/O. CHANDRASHEKHARAPPA KALAGUDI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BEVUR, TQ: DIST: BAGALKOT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M. S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. NEELAVVA W/O. NEELAPPA KALAGUDI, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: SECTOR NO.52, PLOT NO.29E, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT. 2. MURAGESH S/O. CHANDRASHEKHARAPPA KALAGUDI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: BEVUR, TQ & DIST: BAGALKOT. CHANDRASHEKHARAPPA S/O. GANGAPPA KALAGUDI, DECEASED BY HIS LR’S. 3. PARVATEWWA W/O. CHANDRASHEKHARAPPA KALAGUDI, AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: BEVUR, TQ & DIST. BAGALKOT. Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8644 CRP No. 100143 of 2024 4. SURESH S/O. CHANDRASEHKHARAPPA KALAGUDI, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BEVUR, TQ & DIST. BAGALKOT. 5. BHAGIRATHI W/O. BASAVARAJ MALAGONDA, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: BEVUR, TQ & DIST. BAGALKOT. 6. SACHIN S/O. SURESH KALAGUDI, AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: BEVUR, TQ & DIST: BAGALKOT. 7. MRUTYUNJAYA S/O. SURESH KALAGUDI AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: BEVUR, TQ & DIST. BAGALKOT. R6 AND R7 ARE MINORS REP. BY FATHER R4) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVANAND MALASHETTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. ANAND D. BAGEWADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R4 IS SERVED; R6 AND R7 ARE MINORS R/BY R4) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.09.2024 ON I.A.NO.15 IN O.S.NO.41/2015 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, BAGALKOT VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND THEREBY REJECT THE COUNTER CLAIM FILED BY DEFENDANT NO.8(A), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8644 CRP No. 100143 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL) 1. This petition is filed by defendant No.3, being aggrieved by the order dated 19.09.2024 passed in O.S.No.41/2015 by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Bagalkot, whereby I.A.No.15 filed by the petitioner herein, seeking rejection of the counter claim made by respondent No.1 / defendant No.8(a), was rejected. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that one Neelappa, who was originally impleaded in the suit as defendant No.8 had filed his written statement denying any partition of the suit properties. However, upon the demise of said Neelappa, respondent No.1 herein who is his wife was brought on record as his legal representative and arrayed as defendant No.8(a). She filed her written statement as well as the counter claim contending that there was a partition already taken place and had sought for declaration of her title in respect of certain items of the suit properties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the provisions of Order XXII Rule 4(2) of the CPC, submits that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8644 CRP No. 100143 of 2024 respondent No.1 / defendant No.8(a), having come on record as the legal representative of deceased defendant No.8 in the suit, cannot take a stand contrary to the one taken by the deceased defendant No.8. He places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bal Kishan v. Om Parkash1, and the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Shyam Sundar Bazaz Vs. Sanwarmal Jalan and Others2, to contend that though the legal representative of the deceased party is entitled to make any defence appropriate to their character as such, they cannot take a stand contrary to what has already been taken by the deceased. He therefore submits that if such a legal representative intends to raise a defence contrary to what has already been taken, he must do so by filing an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, seeking to implead themselves in their individual capacity. That the Trial Court has not adverted to this legal aspect of the matter while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. Hence, seeks for allowing of the present petition. 1 AIR 1986 SC 1952 2 AIR 2005 Jhar 109 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8644 CRP No. 100143 of 2024 4. At this juncture, learned counsel for respondent No.1 / defendant No.8(a) submits that the present petition may be disposed of, reserving liberty to the respondent No.1/ defendant No.8(a) to take appropriate steps, including but not limited to filing an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, seeking to implead herself as a defendant in her individual capacity and take such further steps as may be permissible in law. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no objection for the same. 6. In that view of the matter, the present petition is allowed. 7. Consequently, the application filed by the petitioner seeking rejection of the counter claim is allowed. The counter claim so made by the respondent No.1/defendant No.8(a) is rejected. 8. Liberty is reserved to respondent No.1 / defendant No.8(a) to pursue such remedies as may be available under law, including filing an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8644 CRP No. 100143 of 2024 CPC in the present suit, and to take such defences as may be permissible in law. 9. All contentions are kept open. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE VNP/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34