Karnataka High Court
N C Sudha vs M T Likhitha on 3 February, 2022
Bench: Ashok S.Kinagi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.11035 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. N C SUDHA
W/O R DINAKARA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
2. SMT KALPANA
W/O R PRABHAKAR
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
3. R VIJAYA KUMAR
S/O REVANNA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
4. SMT N KAVYA
W/O R VIJAYKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
PETITIONERS No.1 TO 4 ARE
R/O MEDEHALLY VILLAGE
CHITRADURGA TALUK
AND DISTRICT-577501
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SIDDAPPA B M, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. M T LIKHITHA
D/O M D THIPPESWAMY
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
2. M T RAKSHITHA
D/O M D THIPPESWAMY
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS
3. K B MAMATHA
W/O M D THIPPESWAMY
AGED ABUT 40 YEARS,
RESPONDENT No.2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED
BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER
RESPONDENT No.3
RESPONDENT No.1 TO 3 ARE
R/O BEHIND UNITY COMPLEX, KELAGOTE
CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577501.
4. SIDDAMMA
W/O M DODDAKURUGODAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
5. M D RAGHAVENDRA
S/O M DODDAKURUGODAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESPONDENT No.4 AND 5 ARE
R/O G. R. HALLY VILLAGE
CHITRADURGA -577 501.
6. R. DINAKARA
S/O S REVANNA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
3
7. R. PRABHAKAR
S/O S REVANNA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESPONDENT No.6 AND 7 ARE
R/O MEDEHALLY VILLAGE
CHITRADURGA TALUK SAND DISTRICT-577501.
8. T. VEERABHADRASWAMY
S/O THIPPESWAMY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
9. T. MANJUNATH
S/O THIPPESWAMY
10 . T. VHNDRASHEKHAR
S/O THIPPESWAMY
RESPONDENT No.8 TO 10 ARE
RESIDENTS OF MANJUNATH TRADERS
B BLOCK, R M C YARD
CHITRADURGA-577501.
11 . SMT. UMA
W/O BHEEMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/O G R HALLY VILLAGE
CHITADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 501.
12 . SMT. SARASWATHI
W/O RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/O GUYELALU VILLAGE
HIRIYUR TALUK-572143
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
13 . DHANALAKSHMI
W/O SUPUTRA SANGAM
4
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O GEJJIGANAHALLI
NAYAKANAHATTI HOBLI
CHALLAKERE TALUK-577522
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.H. VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADV. FOR R-1 TO R-3
SRI. J. PRASHANTH, ADV. FOR R-4, R-5, R-11 TO 13
SPOORTHY HEGDE, NAGARAJA, ADVOCATES
FOR R-8 TO R-10
R-2 MINOR, R-6 SERVED)
------
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED 1ST ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHITRADURGA IN
O.S.NO.9/2013 ON IA NO.3 DATED 11.03.2020 VIDE
ANNX-K.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
5
ORDER
The petitioners, defendants No.4 to 8 in
O.S.No.9/2013, being aggrieved by the order on I.A.3
dated 11.3.2020 passed in the aforesaid suit passed
by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Chitradurga have filed the present writ petition.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition
are as under:
Respondents No.1 to 3 have filed a suit for
partition and separate possession in O.S.No.9/2013
against respondents No.4 and 5. The petitioners No.1
to 3 were impleaded as other defendants in the said
suit. The petitioners were not served with the suit
summons after being impleaded them as defendants
No.4 to 8. The Trial Court decreed the suit by
judgment and preliminary decree dated 21.9.2017 in
respect of the suit schedule property.
Respondents No.1 to 3, plaintiffs No.1 to 3, filed
an application seeking amendment of the plaint and
the preliminary decree. The Trial Court allowed the
application vide order dated 9.3.2020. Hence,
defendants No.4 to 8 have filed this writ petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioners. None
appeared for the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that respondents No.1 to 3 (plaintiffs No.1 to 3) have
filed an application for amendment of the plaint and
amendment of the preliminary decree after disposal of
the suit without serving a copy of the application on
the petitioners herein (defendants No.4 to 8). Further,
respondents No.1 to 3 have filed an application to
take up the matter on Board on 9.3.2020. The Trial
Court allowed the application filed by the petitioners
and taken the matter on Board on 9.3.2020 and
adjourned. The Trial Court heard the matter on
11.3.2020 and allowed the application. Hence, the
learned counsel for the petitioners prayed to allow the
writ petition.
5. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. From a perusal of the order sheet produced by
the petitioners, it indicates that respondents No.1 to 3
have not served a copy of the application on the
petitioners and further the Trial Court without hearing
the petitioners has passed the impugned order. The
impugned order passed by the Trial Court is behind
the back of the petitioners. Hence, on this ground
alone the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
7. Accordingly, the following order is passed :
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed;
ii) The impugned order dated
11.3.2020 is set aside;
iii) The Trial Court is directed to
reconsider the application after affording
opportunity to the petitioners to file the
objection and thereafter, after hearing the
parties, pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law.
In view of the disposal of the writ petition,
I.A.1/2021 does not survive for consideration.
SD/-
JUDGE
rs
