Karnataka High Court
Mr Mohan Raj R vs Sri A Krishna Reddy @ A K Reddy on 5 January, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:584
WP No. 85 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 85 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
MR MOHAN RAJ R
LRS OF DECEASED LAKSHMAMMA,
S/O LATE NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 587, 17TH CROSS,
INDIRANAGAR II STAGE
BENGALURU-560038.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VINAY H.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally SRI A KRISHNA REDDY @ A K REDDY
signed by
NARASIMHA SON OF LATE PATRALA ABBAIAH,
MURTHY
VANAMALA REPRESENTED BY ITS LRS BEFORE
Location: THE TRAIL COURT
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. SMT SAROJAMMA,
W/O LATE A. KRISHNA REDDY
@ A.K REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
2. SMT VANITHA
D/O LATE A KRISHNA REDDY
@ A.K REDDY,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:584
WP No. 85 of 2024
W/O CHANDRASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
3. SMT SAVITHA
D/O LATE A KRISHNA REDDY
@ A.K REDDY,
W/O JAYACHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
4. SRI VIJAYKUMAR
S/O LATE A KRISHNA REDDY
@ A.K REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
5. SRI RAVIKUMAR
S/O LATE A KRISHNA REDDY
@ A.K REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT NO. 22
NEW POLICE STATION ROAD,
P.A STREET, 3RD CROSS,
KRISHNARAJAPURAM,
BANGALORE-560036.
SMT A NARAYANAMMA
DECEASED BY HER LRS
6. SMT K REVATHI,
D/O AND LATE H.M KRISHNA AND
LATE NARAYANAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
7. SMT K HEMAVATHI
D/O AND LATE H.M KRISHNA AND
LATE NARAYANAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:584
WP No. 85 of 2024
8. SRI K RAMESH
S/O AND LATE H.M KRISHNA AND
LATE NARAYANAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT 679/1
INDIRANGAR, 1ST STAGE,
9TH A MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560038.
9. SRI K SURESH
D/O AND LATE H.M KRISHNA AND
LATE NARAYANAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT 679/1
INDIRANAGAR, 1ST STAGE,
9TH A MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560038.
PRESENTLY RESIDES AND WORKING
AT NO. 635, SOUTH ELLIS
STREET APT NO. 2106
CHANDLER ARIZONA 85224
USA-85224.
10. SRI VEERASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
S/O LATE PATRALAABBAIAH,
RESIDING AT NO. 679/1,
9TH MAIN ROAD, INDIRANAGAR 1ST STAGE
SYNDICATE BANK ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 038.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:584
WP No. 85 of 2024
11. SMT A LAKSHMAMMA
W/O NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
R/AT B NARAYANAPURA,
BANGALORE-560016.
12. SRI SEENAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
S/O SRI MUNIYAPPA,
R/AT KAMAVARI STREET,
HOSAKOTE TOWN,
BENGALURU DISTRICT-562114.
13. SRI KODANDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O SRI. MUNIYAPPA,
R/AT KAMAVARI STREET,
HOSAKOTE TOWN,
BENGALURU DISTRICT-562114.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAGA REDDY V.,ADVOCATE
FOR R1 TO R5; NOTICE TO R6 TO R13 IS
DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 05.01.2024)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
ANNEXURE-D ORDER DATED 20/12/2023 ON I.A. NO.
11/2023 PASSED IN MISC. PETITION NO. 25030/2013 ON
THE FILE OF THE LXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT
MAYOHALL UNIT AT BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:584
WP No. 85 of 2024
ORDER
This petition is directed against the impugned order
dated 20.12.2023 passed on I.A. No.11/2023 in Misc.
Petition No.25030/2013 on the file of the LXXIII Additional
City Civil Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru [for short, 'the
trial Court'] whereby the said application filed by the
petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of CPC was rejected by
the trial Court.
2. The material on record discloses that the
respondent Nos.1-5 are the legal representatives of one Sri
Krishna Reddy who has filed the aforesaid Miscellaneous
Petition No.25030/2013 seeking setting aside of the ex
parte Judgment and decree dated 24.07.2004 passed in
O.S. No.11149/1994 in which said Sri Krishna Reddy was
arrayed as Defendant No.2 in a suit for partition and
separate possession filed by Smt. Narayanamma against
Sri. Krishna Reddy and others. The petitioner herein is the
legal representative of Smt. Lakshmamma who was
arrayed as Defendant No.3 in the suit. A perusal of the
Judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.11149/1994
NC: 2024:KHC:584
dated 24.07.2004 will indicate that while Sri Krishna Reddy,
the Defendant No.2 whose legal representatives are the
respondent Nos.1-5 were placed ex parte, the remaining
defendants including Smt. Lakshmamma-Defendant No.3
contested the suit and the same culminated in the said
Judgment and decree in which Smt. Lakshmamma was
also declared to be entitled to a share in the suit schedule
property.
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid ex parte Judgment
and decree passed against him, said Krishna Reddy has
filed the aforesaid Miscellaneous Petition under Order IX
Rule 13 of CPC seeking setting aside of the ex parte
Judgment and decree. The cause title to said
Miscellaneous Petition will indicate that Smt. Lakshmamma
whose legal representative is petitioner herein has been
arrayed as Respondent No.3 to the Miscellaneous Petition.
During the pendency of said Miscellaneous Petition,
aforesaid Smt. Lakshmamma having expired, the
respondent Nos.1-5/Miscellaneous petitioners filed the
application [I.A. No.6] under Order XXII Rule 4 of CPC on
NC: 2024:KHC:584
15.07.2022 to bring her legal representatives i.e., the
petitioners herein on record.
4. It is relevant to state that the petitioner herein,
Mohan Raj R, one of the legal representatives of Smt.
Lakshmamma, the respondent No.3 referred to supra. The
aforesaid application [I.A. No.6] was filed by the respondent
Nos.1-5 in Miscellaneous Petition to bring on record all the
legal representatives of Smt. Lakshmamma including the
petitioner herein. During the pendency of the said
application, the petitioner herein filed the instant application
[I.A. No.11] to come on record as additional respondent to
the said Miscellaneous Petition. The said application
having been opposed by the respondent Nos.1-5, the trial
Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the
application, aggrieved by which the petitioner is before this
Court by way of present petition.
5. A perusal of the material on record clearly
indicate that even according to the respondent Nos.1-5, the
petitioner herein is none other than son of Smt.
NC: 2024:KHC:584
Lakshmamma and is sought to be brought on record as her
legal representative as defendants-respondent Nos.1-5
who do not dispute the relationship of the petitioner with the
deceased Smt. Lakshmamma, the trial Court clearly fell in
error in rejecting the application I.A. No.11 especially when
I.A. No.6 filed by the respondent Nos.1-5 was pending
adjudication. At any rate, both I.A. No.11 filed by the
petitioner and I.A. No.6 filed by the respondent Nos.1-5
deserve to be allowed and the petitioner and the other legal
representatives of the respondents to be brought on record
as her legal representatives in the Miscellaneous Petition
with direction to the trial Court to proceed further in the
matter. In the result, the following:
ORDER
[a] The petition is hereby allowed.
[b] The impugned order dated 20.12.2023 on I.A.
No.11/2023 in Misc. Petition No.25030/2013
on the file of the LXXIII Additional City Civil
Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru is set aside.
Both the applications in I.A. No.11 filed by the
NC: 2024:KHC:584
petitioner and I.A. No.6 filed by the respondent
Nos.1-5 are allowed and the petitioner and
other legal representatives of Smt.
Lakshmamma, the respondent No.3 in
Miscellaneous Petition No.25030/2013 are
directed to be brought on record as her legal
representatives.
[c] The trial Court is directed to bring on record
the legal representatives of Smt.
Lakshmamma as indicated in I.A. No.6 and to
proceed further in the matter.
[d] The trial Court is directed to dispose of
Miscellaneous Petition No.25030/2013 within a
period of six months from the date of receipt of
a certified copy of this order.
SD/-
JUDGE
AN/-
