- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52361 WP No. 12380 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 12380 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MANOJ KUMAR S/O VASAIAH @ SRINIVASAIAH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT INAPURA VILLAGE GULUR HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA PRASAD, ADV., FOR SRI S.H. PRASHANTH, ADV.) AND: 1. 1a. T.H. HANUMANTHAIAH S/O HANUMAIAH SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LRs DHANANJAYA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O LATE HANUMATHAIAH. 1b. MRS. MEENAKSHI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS D/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH. 1c. MRS. JAYALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS D/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH. 1d. MS. KIRAN GOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52361 WP No. 12380 of 2021 ALL RESPONDENTS 1a TO 1d RESIDING AT CHANDRAMOULESHWARA EXTENSDION, KYATASANDRA TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 2. V.R. GANGAPPA S/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/AT SUGGANAHALLI VILLAGE KUDURU HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, ADV., FOR R-1(d); R-1(a) TO R-1(c) SERVE & UNREPRESENTED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.11.2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR DIVISION, TUMKUR IN ALLOWING I.A.NOS.5, 6 AND 7 VIDE A COMMON ORDER IN O.S.NO.67/2008 ANNEXURE-A IN TERMS AS PRAYED FOR. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set aside the order dated 06.11.2025 passed on IA.nos.5, 6 & 7 in O.S.No.67/2008 by the Court of Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Tumakuru. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52361 WP No. 12380 of 2021 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Suit in O.S.No.67/2008 was filed by Smt. Jayamma seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property claiming half share. During the pendency of the suit, Jayamma had died. Thereafter, O.S.No.67/2008 was dismissed as abated. IA.nos.5, 6 & 7 were filed by the petitioner herein under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, Order XXII Rule 9 CPC, and under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC, respectively, with a prayer to condone the delay in filing the application for setting aside the abatement, to set aside the abatement, and to permit the petitioner to come on record as the legal representative of the plaintiff in O.S.No.67/2008. 4. The said applications were opposed by defendant no.1 by filing objections. 5. The Trial Court vide the order impugned, has rejected IA.nos.5, 6 & 7, and being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52361 WP No. 12380 of 2021 6. In the applications which are filed on behalf of the petitioner, he has stated that he is the son of the plaintiff and he is entitled to come on record as her legal representative and prosecute the suit. 7. Undisputedly, the suit is filed seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. Defendant no.1 in his objections to IA.nos.5, 6 & 7, has stated that petitioner is not the only legal representative of deceased plaintiff and he has got a sister by name Mamatha. In the objections, it is further stated that name of petitioner's name has been mentioned as Vasaiah, whereas the original name of his father is Srinivasaiah. 8. The Trial Court vide the order impugned has rejected IA.nos.5, 6 & 7 on the ground that the applicant has failed to produce necessary documents to substantiate his relationship with deceased plaintiff. The Trial Court has failed to consider that defendant no.1 in his objection has admitted the relationship of the petitioner with deceased Jayamma. All that he has stated is that petitioner is not the only legal representative of deceased plaintiff and he has got another - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52361 WP No. 12380 of 2021 sister by name Mamatha. It is under these circumstances, petitioner had taken necessary steps for service of notice on his sister Mamatha and inspite of service of notice, she had not appeared before the Trial Court. Under the circumstances, the Trial Court was not justified in observing that petitioner had not produced necessary material to prove his relationship with the plaintiff. 9. So far as the discrepancy with regard to mentioning the name of the father of the petitioner, it is the specific contention of the petitioner that his father Srinivasaiah is also known as Vasaiah. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to prove the said aspect of the matter before the Trial Court by producing necessary material in support of his contention. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the order impugned needs to be set aside and the matter has to be remanded to the Trial Court to consider the applications afresh. Accordingly, the following order: 10. Writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.11.2025 passed on IA.nos.5, 6 & 7 in O.S.No.67/2008 by the Court of Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Tumakuru, is set aside. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52361 WP No. 12380 of 2021 The Trial Court is directed to consider IA.nos.5, 6 & 7 afresh after hearing all the concerned parties. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK