Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 50727 (KAR)

SIDDESHA @ SIDDA v. SMT. RUDRAMMA

CRP/802/2024 · 2026-01-29

R Devdas

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4967 CRP No. 802 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 802 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SIDDESHA @ SIDDA S/O LATE NAGARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/A KOTE, NEAR BANASHANKARI TEMPLE HOSADURGA TOWN, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577527. A PERSON OF UNSOUND MIND, REP. BY HIS WIFE AS NEXT FRIEND SMT. SAVITHRAMMA WIFE OF SIDDESH ALIAS SIDDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/A KOTE, NEAR BANASHANKARI TEMPLE, HOSADURGA TOWN, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577527. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.JAYSHAM RAO., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RUDRAMMA WIFE OF THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577527. Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4967 CRP No. 802 of 2024 2. SMT. VIJAYAMMA DAUGHTER OF LATE GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/A KOTE, NEAR BANASHANKARI TEMPLE, HOSADURGA TOWN, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577527. 3. SRI. MARUTHI SON OF LATE SHIVALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/A KOTE, NEAR BANASHANKARI TEMPLE, HOSADURGA TOWN, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577527. 4. SRI PRASANNA SON OF LATE SHIVALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/A KOTE, NEAR BANASHANKARI TEMPLE, HOSADURGA TOWN, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577527. 5. SRI SHARATH SON OF LATE SHIVALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDING BEHIND DURGAMMA TEMPLE, HOSADURGA TOWN, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577527. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N PRAVEEN KUMAR & SRI. A.C.BALARAJ., ADVOCATES FOR R1 TO R5) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.10.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.V IN OS.NO.233/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4967 CRP No. 802 of 2024 JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSADURGA, REJECTING THE I.A.NO.V FILED UNDER ORDER 32 RULE 15 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER Learned counsel Sri N.Praveen Kumar has entered appearance for the respondents. 2. Although, the matter is coming up for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their ranking before the trial court. 4. The petitioner was the plaintiff in O.S.No.233/2022 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge & JMFC at Hosadurga, is before this court, aggrieved - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4967 CRP No. 802 of 2024 of the rejection of I.A.No.5 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XXXII Rule 15 of the CPC seeking permission to proceed with the suit by appointing the petitioner's wife Smt.Savitramma as the next friend of the plaintiff. The averments made in the application to support the application filed by the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a person of unsound mind and therefore he should be permitted to take the assistance of his wife, who could be appointed as the next friend to conduct the suit on behalf of the plaintiff. The application having been rejected, the plaintiff is before this Court. 5. The learned counsels for the plaintiff as well as the defendants, after arguing for sometime submit that the application may be reconsidered by the trial Court, but an expert independent Doctor may be appointed to examine the plaintiff and based on the information of the said expert,the trial court can reconsider the application. 6. In that view of the matter, the Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed, while setting aside the impugned - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4967 CRP No. 802 of 2024 order dated 28.10.2024 passed on I.A.5 filed at the hands of the plaintiff. The matter stands remanded back to the trial court to re-consider the application, however, after seeking the opinion of an expert Doctor, who can examine the plaintiff and file his report before the trial Court. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE KLY CT: JL