- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42665 WP No. 8367 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 8367 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHEELA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS W/O LATE C.K. PRAKASH. 2. C.K, PRATHAPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS S/O LATE C.K. PRAKASH. 3. SMT. LEELAVATHY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS W/O BALAHCANDRA D/O C. KALEEREGOWDA RESIDING AT NO.207 H.S.R. LAYOUT, AREHALLI BANGALORE. 4. C.K. CHANNAVEEREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O LATE C. KALEEREGOWDA RESIDENTS OF CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE, KASBA HOBLI MADDUR TALUK, KASABA HOBLI MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SHIVARAMU H.C, ADV.) AND: 1. SMT. C.K. MUTHULAXMAMMA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS D/O LATE C. KALEEREGOWDA AND W/O B. APPAJIGOWDA Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42665 WP No. 8367 of 2022 2. KALEEREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS D/O LATE C KALEEREGOWDA RESIDENT NOs 1 & 2 ARE RESIDENTS OF CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE, KASBA HOBLI MADDUR TALUK MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428. 3. SMT. SHARADA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS W/O M C BOREGOWDA D/O LATE C KALEEREGOWDA REISIDNG AT DOOR NO.593 4TH CROSS 8TH MAIN B H C S LAYOUT PADMANABHANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 032. 4. SMT. MAMATHA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS W/O LATE C K NAGARAJU 5. SMT. K RASHMU AGED AVBOUT 30 YEARS D/O LATE C.K NAGARAJU RESPONDENT Nos 4 & 5 ARE RESIDENTS OF CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE KASBA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428. 6. APOORVA CHANDRA MAJOR PROPRIETOR FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS POORNACHANDRA PRINTING PRESS BAZAAR STREET MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428. 7. GANESH MAJOR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42665 WP No. 8367 of 2022 FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS PROPRIETOR GANESH TEXTILES, BAZAAR STREET MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. 8. M. NAGARAJU MAJOR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS PROPRIETOR SIDDARAMESHWARA FURNITURES BAZAAR STREET, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428. 9. KRISHNA MAJOR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS PROPRIETOR LAKSHMU FANCY STORES BAZAAR STREET, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI L. RAJANNA, ADV., FOR R-2; SRI K.P BHUVAN, ADV., FOR R-3; SRI KIRAN KUMAR D.K, ADV., R-4; R-1, R-7 TO R-9 SERVED UNDREPRESENTED; V/O/D 05.05.2023, NOTICE TO R-5 & R-6 IS H/S) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMON ORDER DTD 02.12.2021 PASSED ON IA NO.XLVI TO XLVIII IN OS NO.12/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MADDUR MARKED AS ANNEXURE-J BY ISSUING A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42665 WP No. 8367 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Defendants nos.2, 3, 7 & 8 are before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the common order dated 02.12.2021 passed on IA.Nos.46, 47 & 48 in O.S.No.12/2010 by the Court of Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Maddur, Mandya District. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. O.S.No.12/2010 was filed with a prayer for partition and separate possession of 1/7th share of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule properties and also for mesne profits. In the said suit, defendant no.8 had filed written statement and it appears that defendant no.4 who is the sister of defendant no.8 had filed a memo adopting the written statement of defendant no.8. Subsequently, additional written statement was also filed by defendant no.8, and thereafter another memo was filed on behalf of defendant no.4 adopting the additional written statement filed by defendant no.8. Subsequently, IA no.46 was filed by defendant no.4 under Section 151 of CPC with a prayer to permit defendant no.4 to withdraw the memo dated - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42665 WP No. 8367 of 2022 18.06.2013 and the memo dated 12.11.2019 under which her advocate had adopted the written statement and the additional written statement filed by defendant no.8 and permit defendant no.4 to file a separate written statement. Thereafter, IA no.47 was filed seeking permission to file fresh written statement, and IA no.48 was filed under Section 151 CPC on behalf of defendant no.4 to reject the cross-examination done by her earlier counsel. The said applications were opposed by defendant nos.2, 3, 7 & 8 by filing objections. 4. The Trial Court vide the order impugned, has allowed IA no.46 and has permitted defendant no.4 to withdraw the memos filed. IA no.47 was allowed permitting defendant no.4 to file a fresh written statement, and IA no.48 was allowed in part permitting defendant no.4 to cross-examine the concerned witnesses by filing necessary application in that regard. Being agreed by the same, petitioners herein who are defendant nos.2, 3, 7 & 8 are before this Court. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits, that application was filed belatedly at the stage when the suit was posted for judgment. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42665 WP No. 8367 of 2022 Defendant no.4 wants to wriggle out from the admissions made by her. If this is permitted, parties are required to go for a fresh trial in the case which would cause untold hardship to them. 6. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for defendant no.4 submits that defendant no.8 is the younger brother of defendant no. 4. Except signing the vakalath, defendant no.4 has not signed any other document including the memos under which the written statement filed by defendant no.8 were adopted by her Counsel. Even the settlement reported to the Court was not signed by defendant no.4. After the Trial Court appreciated these aspects of the matter, it has rejected the compromise petition that was submitted to the court. He submits that property bearing No.634/1 measuring 20 guntas of Maddur village, originally belonged to the mother of defendant no.4 and the same was not the subject matter of the suit schedule and in the compromise petition even the said property was included. In the additional written statement which was filed on behalf of defendant no.8, he has made a statement that his mother had gifted the said property, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42665 WP No. 8367 of 2022 whereas the mother actually has executed a Will in favour of defendant no.4, in respect of the said property and the said property is in the possession and enjoyment of defendant no.4. It is under these circumstances, she was constrained to file a separate written statement. The Trial Court having appreciated these aspects of the matter, has rightly allowed the prayers made in IA nos.46, 47 & 48. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 7. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that defendant nos.8 & 4 were represented by the same advocate. According to defendant no.4, at the request of her younger brother - defendant no.8, she had signed the vakalath and had handed over the same to him, who in turn had engaged the services of an advocate on their behalf. Written statement is filed by defendant no.8 initially on 27.09.2010. On the same day, a memo was also filed on behalf of defendant no.4 by her advocate, adopting the written statement of defendant no.8. Defendant no.4 is not a signatory to the said memo. Subsequently, an additional written statement was filed by defendant no.8 and the additional written statement was also - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42665 WP No. 8367 of 2022 adopted by filing a memo on behalf of defendant no.4, which was also not signed by her. 8. According to defendant no.4, the aforesaid property bearing No.634/1 which belongs to her mother was bequeathed in her favour by her mother and she is in possession and enjoyment of the same and the revenue records of the land are also transferred in her name. However, a statement is found in the additional written statement of defendant no.8 that the said property has been gifted by his mother in his favour during her lifetime and accordingly he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property as absolute owner of the same. It appears that in the compromise petition that was filed by the parties, the aforesaid property which is not the subject matter of the suit schedule was also included and after coming to know about the same, defendant no.4 and some other defendants had opposed the compromise petition and the Trial Court having appreciated the aforesaid aspects, has rejected the compromise petition by order dated 19.08.2021. It is under these circumstances, a prayer is made by the defendant no.4 to file a separate written statement and defend her case. She has also - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42665 WP No. 8367 of 2022 filed IA no.46 with a prayer to permit her to withdraw the memo dated 18.06.2013 and the memo dated 12.11.2019 under which her advocate had adopted the written statement and the additional written statement filed by defendant no.8. IA no.47 was filed seeking permission to file fresh written statement, and IA no.48 was filed to reject the cross- examination done by her earlier counsel. 9. The Trial Court having appreciated that defendant was totally kept in dark about the contents of the written statement, additional written statement and the compromise petition which was filed in the suit, has permitted to withdraw the memos. Insofar as the prayer made in IA no.47 is concerned, the same is allowed permitting defendant no.4 to file a fresh written statement. IA no.48 is allowed in part permitting defendant no.4 to cross-examine the concerned witnesses by filing necessary applications in that regard. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity which calls for interference by this Court. I do not find any good ground to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42665 WP No. 8367 of 2022 entertain this petition. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK