- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17606 WP No. 103952 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 103952 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHANTAVVA CHANDRASHEKHAR CHANNAPPAGOL, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BUDHIHAL SG, TQ: BILAGI-587117. 2. SHRI FAKIRAPPA S/O. RAMAPPA HERAKALL, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BUDHIHAL SG, TQ: BILAGI-587117. 3. SMT. KAMALAXI W/O. MALLAPPA HERAKALL, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BUDHIHAL SG, TQ: BILAGI-587117. 4. KUMAR PRANAV S/O. MALLAPPA HERAKALL, AGE: 5 YEARS, SINCE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN PETITIONER NO.3, SMT. KAMALAXMI MALLAPPA HARAKAL, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BUDHIHAL SG, TQ: BILAGI-587117. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.12.10 16:35:45 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17606 WP No. 103952 of 2025 5. KUMAR. PREETHAM S/O. MALLAPPA HERAKALL, AGE: 8 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN PETITIONER NO.3, SMT. KAMALAXMI MALLAPPA HARAKAL, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BUDHIHAL SG, TQ: BILAGI-587117. 6. SMT. BASALINGAVVA RAMAPPA HERAKALL, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BUDHIHAL SG, TQ: BILAGI-587117. 7. SMT. PARVATEVVA NANDABASAPPA HERAKALL, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BUDHIHAL SG, TQ: BILAGI-587117. 8. SHRI SANGAMESH S/O. NANDABASAPPA HERAKALL, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BUDHIHAL SG, TQ: BILAGI-587117. 9. SMT. CHANDRAKALA W/O. PARASHU TALLUR, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KULALI, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587113. 10. SHRI IRAPPA S/O. NANDABASAPPA HERAKALL, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BUDHIHAL SG, TQ: BILAGI-587117. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17606 WP No. 103952 of 2025 11. SHRI SHIVAPPA S/O. RAMAPPA HERAKALL, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BUDHIHAL SG, TQ: BILAGI-587117. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. BOURAVVA W/O. FAKIRAPPA HERAKALL, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. BUDHIHAL SG, TQ: BILAGI, NOW R/O. BOLCHIKKALAKKI, TQ: AND DIST: BIJAPUR-586125. 2. SHRI MALLAPPA S/O. FAKIRAPPA HERAKALL, AGE: 18 YEARS, OCCN: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. BUDHIHAL SG, TQ: BILAGI, NOW R/O. BOLCHIKKALAKKI, TQ: AND DIST: BIJAPUR-586125. 3. JYOTI D/O. FAKIRAPPA HERAKALL, AGE: 14 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.4 SMT. BOURAVVA W/O. FAKIRAPPA HERAKALL, NOW R/O. BOLCHIKKALAKKI, TQ: AND DIST: BIJAPUR-586125. 4. SANGARAPPA S/O. FAKIRAPPA HERAKALL, AGE: 12 YEARS, SINCE MINOR, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17606 WP No. 103952 of 2025 REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.4, SMT. BOURAVVA W/O. FAKIRAPPA HERAKALL, R/O. BUDHILAL SG, TQ: BILAGI, NOW R/O. BOLCHIKKALAKKI, TQ: AND DIST: BIJAPUR-586125. 5. KANTU S/O. SANGARAPPA HERAKALL, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BUDHILAL SG, TQ: BILAGI-587117. 6. SHEKHAR S/O. SAGARAPPA HERAKALL, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BUDHILAL SG, TQ: BILAGI-587117. 7. SMT. BOURAVVA W/O. BASAPPA PATTANSHETTI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KERUR, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587206. 8. SHASHIKUMAR S/O. SAGARAPPA HERAKALL, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BUDHILAL SG, TQ: BILAGI-587117. 9. SMT. HEMA PENDAPPA MARADI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. TEGGI, TQ: BILAGI-587117. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17606 WP No. 103952 of 2025 10. SMT. LAXMAVVA W/O. SAGRAPPA HERAKALL, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. BUDHILAL SG, TQ: BILAGI-587117. DIED LR’S ARE ALREADY ON RECORD AS R5, R6, R7 & R11 AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER DATED 04.12.2025 11. SMT. MAHANANDA W/O. RACHAPPA PATTANSHETTI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KERUR, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587206. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; R3 & R4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R4 MOTHER GUARDIAN; NOTICE TO R5-R9 & R11 IS SERVED; R5-R7 & R11 ARE LR’S OF DECEASED R10) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 12/06/2025 PASSED BY CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BILAGI ON I.A. NO.XII IN THE PROCEEDINGS OF O.S. NO.131/2009, PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-N CONSEQUENTLY DISMISSING THE COUNTER CLAIM OF DEFENDANT NO.7 AS AGAINST THESE PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS 9 TO 19 AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17606 WP No. 103952 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 12.06.2025 passed in O.S.No.131/2009 on I.A.No.XII on the file of Civil Judge, Bilagi, allowing the application to implead the present petitioners who claimed to have purchased the property bearing Sy.No.244/2+3+4+5/3A+B of Badagi village, taluk Bilagi. 3. The proposed defendants are before this Court on the premise that the property was sold prior to the filing of the suit in the year 2009 as such, the application filed in the year 2025 is not maintainable. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would also refer to the judgment of this Court in RSA No.100138/2014 to contend that in Paragraph No.6 of the operative portion of the order, this Court has held that the parties are permitted to implead the pendente lite purchasers and since the property is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17606 WP No. 103952 of 2025 sold prior to the filing of the suit, the application to implead the purchasers of the property who have purchased the property prior to the pending of the suit is not maintainable. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents/defendant No.7 would submit that defendant No.7 has filed counter claim claiming share in the said property and has taken a specific stand that the suit is not maintainable without including the aforementioned property and the application is filed by defendant No.7 to implead the purchasers and the application is rightly allowed as defendant No.7 has sought partition in the aforementioned property. 6. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 7. It is indeed true that this Court in RSA No.100138/2014 referred to above has held that the parties are at liberty to move the application to implead the pendente lite purchasers. However, said order cannot be construed as having debarred any party to the proceeding from moving an application to implead the necessary party to the proceeding. Order I Rule - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17606 WP No. 103952 of 2025 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure enables the Court to implead any necessary party to the proceeding during the pendency of the suit. 8. It is also noticed that defendant No.7 has filed counter claim and has sought partition in respect of the property which is sold prior to the institution of the suit itself. This being the position to adjudicate the claim of defendant No.7 who has sought partition in the property which is said to have been sold prior to the institution of the suit, the purchaser of the property would be necessary party to the proceeding. 9. In Para No.20 of the impugned order, the Trial Court has held that the proposed defendants have not produced any records to show that the property is sold prior to the institution of the suit. It is to be noticed that the document is already produced and the fact that the property is alienated prior to the institution of the suit is not in dispute. 10. The Court does not find any reason to reject the application to implead the present petitioners. However it is made clear that the present petitioners are at liberty to take all - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17606 WP No. 103952 of 2025 defence available in law including the defence relating to limitation. 11. If such contention is raised, same has to be considered in accordance with law, without being influenced by the order, permitting defendant No.7 to implead the present petitioners as a party to the proceeding. 12. Under these circumstances, the proposed defendants are permitted to take all defence available under law, including the law of limitation. 13. With the above observations, writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CLK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6