Kariya @ Kariyappa vs Smt Puspalatha
2023 Latest Caselaw 5701 Kant

                                          -1-
                                                     NC: 2023:KHC:29224
                                                   WP No. 17794 of 2023




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                   DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

                                      BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
                   WRIT PETITION NO. 17794 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
              BETWEEN:

              1.   KARIYA @ KARIYAPPA
                   S/O LATE JAVARA
                   AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

              2.   SMT. VIRAJI
                   W/O KARIYA @ KARIYAPPA
                   AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS

                   BOTH ARE R/AT 170/2,
                   8TH CROSS, I-A MAIN
                   GURURAJA LAYOUT
                   DODDANAKUNDI POST
                   MARATHAHALLI
                   BENGALURU-560037.
                                                          ...PETITIONERS
Digitally     (BY SRI SURESH S LOKRE, SR.COUNSEL A/W
signed by      SRI BYREGOWDA, ADV.)
PRAMILA G V
Location:     AND:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA     1.   SMT. PUSPALATHA
                   W/O LATE KRISHNA K T
                   AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
                   R/A C/O P T KRISHNAIAH
                   #EW-267/1, ASHOKA EXTENSION
                   ADUVALI, HASSAN-573201.

              2.   THE GENERAL MANAGER
                   LIC OF INDIA
                   RICHMOND TOWN BRANCH
                   (308), CANARA MUTUAL BUILDING
                             -2-
                                         NC: 2023:KHC:29224
                                      WP No. 17794 of 2023




    I FLOOR, FM KARIYAPPA ROAD
    BENGALURU-560025.
                                             ...RESPONDENTS

     THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 19/07/2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.6014/2011 BY THE XI
ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-
8) (ANNEXURE-E) AND DIRECT THE COURT TO DECIDE THE
CASE, AS IT STOOD PRIOR TO RESERVING FOR JUDGMENT.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

The petitioners/defendants No.1 and 2 in

O.S.No.6014/2011 on the file of the XI Additional City Civil

Judge at Bangalore are before this Court under Article 227

of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated

19.07.2023 wherein the learned trial Judge passed the

following order:

"While in the process of dictating the judgment, it is noticed that the daughter of Plaintiff, though she is just a necessary and proper party, she was not made as party.

Hence, providing an opportunity to the Plaintiff to array her daughter as one of the parties to the proceedings, case is adjourned to 28.07.2023."

NC: 2023:KHC:29224 WP No. 17794 of 2023

2. Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri.Suresh S. Lokre

for Sri.Byregowda, learned counsel for petitioners.

Perused the writ petition papers.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would

submit that the trial Court committed an error in providing

an opportunity to the plaintiff to array her daughter as one

of the parties to the proceedings when the matter was at

the stage of judgment. Learned Senior counsel would

submit that the trial Court ought to have proceeded to

pass the judgment on its merits when issue No.4 with

regard to maintainability of suit for want of necessary

parties was framed. Learned trial judge ought to have

proceeded to pass the judgment on the material already

available on record. Thus, learned Senior Counsel would

submit that by setting aside the order dated 19.07.2023,

learned trial judge be directed to pass the judgment on

the records as available as on this date. Thus, he prays

for allowing the writ petition.

NC: 2023:KHC:29224 WP No. 17794 of 2023

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the

view that no ground is made out to interfere with the

impugned order dated 19.07.2023 wherein learned trial

Judge has afforded an opportunity to the plaintiff to array

her daughter as one of the parties to the proceedings.

5. Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC empowers the Court to

strike down or add parties at any stage of the proceedings.

The Court could either upon or without the application of

either party, order that the name of any party improperly

joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out,

and that the name of any person who ought to have been

joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant or whose

presence is necessary in order to enable the Court to

effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all

the questions involved in the suit be added. Therefore,

the learned trial Judge before passing judgment, on going

through the records was of opinion that the daughter of

the plaintiff was necessary party. Affording opportunity to

NC: 2023:KHC:29224 WP No. 17794 of 2023

the plaintiff to add necessary party is proper and correct

and the trial Judge cannot be found fault with, that too in

a suit for partition.

6. This Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India could interfere with the order if the petitioners

establishe that the impugned order if allowed to remain

would cause prejudice and would result in miscarriage of

justice. In the instant case, it is not the case of the

petitioners that they are greatly prejudiced or it would

lead to miscarriage of justice. In the above

circumstances, there is no merit in the writ petition.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected.

All contentions of the parties are left open.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MPK CT:bms