SMT RIHANABEGUM W/O ABDUL AZEEJ BELGAUM v. MUJEEB S/O ABDUL AZEEJ BELAGAUM
CRP/100103/2024 · 2025-03-05
E S Indiresh
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 6734 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 6734 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4260 CRP No. 100103 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100103 OF 2024 (-)
BETWEEN:
SMT. REHANABEGUM W/O. ABDUL AZEEJ BELGAUM, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O. NIZAMUDDIN COLONY, 1ST CROSS, NEAR VIDYARANYYA HIGHSCHOOL, DHARWAD, AT PRESENT C/O. ABID JAHIGIRDHAR, SHEIKH COMPOUND, NEAR AKASHWANI, DHARWAD, DHARWAD-08. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.S. SANGATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MUJEEB S/O. ABDUL AZEEJ BELAGAUM, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. NIZAMUDDIN COLONY, 1ST CROSS, NEAR VIDYARANYYA HIGHSCHOOL, DHARWAD. 2. MUSKAN D/O. ABDUL AZEEJ BELGAUM, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. NIZAMUDDIN COLONY, 1ST CROSS, NEAR VIDYARANYYA HIGHSCHOOL, DHARWAD. 3. SMT. FARIDABEGUM W/O. ABDUL AZEEJ BELAGUM, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NIZAMUDDIN COLONY, 1ST CROSS, NEAR VIDYARANYYA HIGHSCHOOL, DHARWAD. 4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E) KARNATAKA AUDIT BHAVAN, BENGALURU-01. Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.03.07 16:18:40 +0530
- 2 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4260 CRP No. 100103 of 2024
5. THE DIRECTOR, TREASURY DIRECTORATE, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU. 6. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DISTRICT TREASURY, BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 7. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, SUB TREASURY OFFICE, SAVADATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 8. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD, DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD. 9. THE MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA, HOSAYALLAPUR BRANCH, DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR B. ANCHATGERI, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3;
SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R4-R8;
R9-SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.01.2024 MADE IN O.S.NO.577/2021 ON I.A. FILED BY PETITIONER/DEFT. 1 UNDER ORDER 2 RULE 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC SEEKING FOR DISMISSAL OF SUIT, PASSED BY THE IST ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC DHARWAD AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
- 3 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4260 CRP No. 100103 of 2024
ORAL ORDER
This revision petition is filed by the defendant No.1 in OS No.577/2021 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’), challenging the order dated 19.01.2024 rejecting the application filed under Order 2 Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC. 2.
Having taken note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, I have carefully examined the revision papers wherein the plaintiffs have filed OS No.577/2021, seeking partition and separate possession in respect of the property belonging to their father – Sri. Abdul Azeej S/o. Razak Belagum. 3. After service of notice, the defendants entered appearance and filed written statement and contested the matter on merits. In the meanwhile, the defendant No.1 has filed application under Order 2 Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC stating that, the relief sought for in the earlier suit OS No.10/2017 disposed off on 26.08.2019 by
- 4 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4260 CRP No. 100103 of 2024
the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dharwad, against which MFA No.103819/2019 is pending consideration before this Court and therefore, the subsequent suit in OS No.577/2021 is not maintainable. The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs. 4. The Trial Court after considering the material on record rightly come to the conclusion that, the plaintiffs in OS No.577/2021 were not the parties in OS No.10/2017 and further, the cause of action for both the suits are different. Hence, the Trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant No.1 which is impugned in this Revision Petition. 5. Taking into consideratio the observation made above and the finding recorded by the Court below, no interference is called for in this petition. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19