- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43190 WP No. 11350 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 11350 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT LAKSHMI, D/O LATE K MUNISWAMY, W/O ANAND, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O NO.1830, BLOCK NO IV T BLOCK, JAYANGAR EXTN, BANGALORE - 560041. …PETITIONER (BY SRI LAKSHMIKANTH K.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI M VENKATESH, S/O LT K MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O NO 1830/13, 41ST CROSS JAYANAGAR EXTENSION, BANGALORE - 560041. 2. SMT VAEMBAMMAL, W/O LATE K MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS R/O NO.1830, BLOCK NO IV T BLOCK JAYANAGAR EXTENSION, BANGALORE - 560041. 3. SMT MUNIYAMMA, D/O LATE K MUNISWAMY, W/O V MOHAN, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO 6A, KAMRAJ STREET, VELKADALESWAMY MADAM,CHENNAI - 11. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAI PRAKASH REDDY M, ADVOCATE FOR R1, V/O/D 03.09.2022, NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 IS D/W) Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43190 WP No. 11350 of 2022 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE XX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (CCH-32) IN OS.NO.4883/2013 ON THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10 (2) R/W 151 OF CPC DATED 04.03.2022 AT ANNEXURE-E AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO IMPALED THE PROPOSED RESPONDENTS STATED IN THE APPLICATION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India by defendant No.3 with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 04.03.2022 passed on I.A.No.15 in O.S.No.4883/2013 by the Court of XX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43190 WP No. 11350 of 2022 3. O.S.No.4883/2013 is filed by respondent No.1 herein against defendants No.1 to 3 seeking relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property and also to declare that the partition deed dated 28.02.2013 entered between defendants No.1 to 3 is null and void. Defendant No.3 contested the suit by filing a detailed written statement. In the said, suit at the stage of the defendants' evidence, IA No.15 was filed by defendant No.3 under Order I rule 10 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer to implead the proposed parties as defendants in the suit. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing objection. The Trial Court vide the order impugned has rejected the said application and being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.3 is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proposed defendants are the widow and daughter of Late Murugesan who is the younger brother of plaintiff and defendant No.3. Therefore, they are necessary parties to the suit which is filed for partition and separate possession. The Trial Court has erred in rejecting the application and accordingly prays to allow the petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43190 WP No. 11350 of 2022 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has opposed the prayer made in the Writ Petition and submits that in the plaint itself it has been stated that Murugesan had expired in the year 2000 and his wife Janaki had remarried after the death of Murugesan and her whereabouts is not known to the plaintiff since the time of her remarriage. The same is not disputed in the written statement filed on behalf of defendant No.3. Therefore, it is not now open for the defendant No.3 to contend that the wife and children of Late Murugesan are required to be brought on record in the present petition. The application is filed only to protract the litigation and accordingly, prays to reject the petition. 6. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that the plaintiff and defendants No.2 and 3 are the children of late K.Muniswamy and defendant No.1 is the mother of plaintiff and defendants No.2 and 3. In the plaint itself the genealogical tree of the family under K.Muniswamy has been provided and it is clearly mentioned that Murugesan who was the last son of K.Muniswamy and defendant No.1 had died. There is specific pleading in the plaint that Murugesan died in the year 2000 and his wife remarried after the death of Murugesan and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43190 WP No. 11350 of 2022 whereabouts of Murugesan's wife Janaki is not known to the plaintiff since the time of her remarriage. In the written statement which is filed on behalf of defendant No.3, it is clearly admitted that Murugesan has died in the year 2000 and it is stated that it may be true that his wife Janaki has remarried and it is also stated that genealogical tree shown in the plaint is correct. In the genealogical tree shown in the plaint it is not mentioned that Murugesan has a daughter through his wife Janaki. It is for the first time such a contention is now sought to be put forth by defendant No.3 when the suit is at the stage of recording defendants' evidence. 7. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that, though the Trial Court has rejected the application with a different reason, having regard to the aforesaid aspects of the matter, no interference is called for as against the order impugned. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this petition. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43190 WP No. 11350 of 2022 9. Since the suit is of the year 2013, Trial Court is requested to expedite the trial and dispose of the suit on merits as expeditiously as possible. 10. In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2025 does not survive for consideration, accordingly, stands disposed of. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18