Karnataka High Court
Mustaffa Khadri And Anr vs Noorhajan And Ors on 4 September, 2024
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6657
WP No. 202331 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 202331 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. MUSTAFFA KHADRI AND S/O GOUSPEER PEERJADE,
AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
RESIDENCE OF NAGADAE GALLI,
GACHIN MAHAL, BIJAPUR-586104
2. GOOREPPEER S/O GOUSPEER PEERJADE,
AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
RESIDENCE OF KANKAL,
TALUKA B. BAGEWADI-586203
...PETITIONERS
Digitally signed
by (BY SRI. AMRESH S ROJA, ADVOCATE)
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. NOORHAJAN W/O SALEEM JAHAGIRDAR,
KARNATAKA AGE. 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION HOUSEHOLD WORK,
RESIDENCE OF GM ROAD, ZANDA KATTA,
BIJAPUR-586104
2. BIPASHA W/O PASHA @ MASTAN HUSSAINE,
AGE. 69 YEARS,
OCCUPATION HOUSEHOLD WORK,
RESIDENCE OF GOOGI,
TALUKA SHAHAPUR,
DISTRICT GULBARGA,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6657
WP No. 202331 of 2024
NOW YADGIRI-585309
3. SHAHAZADBI W/O YUSUFPASHA JAHAGIRDAR,
AGE: 67 YEARS,
OCCUPATION HOUSEHOLD WORK,
RESIDENCE OF SHIGARALLI,
TALUKA JEWARGI,
DISTRICT GULBARGA-58
4. SAHIBJAADEE W/O NOORUDDIN INAMDAR,
AGE: 64 YEARS,
OCCUPATION HOUSEHOLD WORK,
RESIDENCE OF HARIYAL GALLI, BIJAPUR.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS ARE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSSUE (A) ISSUE A WRIT
IN A NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT,
DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER ANNEXURE-G
DATED 12.06.2024 PASSED IN O.S NO. 162/2012 BY THE ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BASAVANA BAGEWADI, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE, ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
1. Notice to the respondents are dispensed with, in view
of the proposed order to be passed in the present
petition.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6657
2. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
(a) Issue a writ in a nature of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, direction, quashing the
impugned order under Annexure-G dated
12.06.2024 passed in O.S.No.162/2012 by the
Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC Cout, Basavana
Bagewadi, in the interest of justice.
(b) Such other writ or order as direction as deemed
fit as circumstances of the case including an
order for costs.
3. The petitioners are defendants in O.S.No.162/2012
filed for partition and separate possession. The suit
having been decreed, an appeal was filed in
R.A.No.25/2019, which came to be partially allowed
by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Basavana
Bagewadi, vide Judgment dated 27.11.2020 and
matter was remanded to the trial court.
4. Subsequent to the remand, the plaintiff filed an
application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, to include two other properties and a
relief in respect of those properties for partition. The
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6657
said application came to be opposed by the petitioner
herein, who is defendant Nos.1 and 2 therein. The
trial Court, by way of the impugned order dated
12.06.2024, allowed the said application. It is
aggrieved by the same; the petitioners are before
this Court.
5. The submission of Sri.Amaresh S. Roja, learned
counsel for the petitioners is that the remand being a
limited order, no fresh reliefs can be sought for. The
suit ought to be proceeded with in the manner as
filed and as such, new properties could not be
brought on record nor new reliefs can be sought for
and on that ground he submits that the order of the
trial Court suffers from legal infirmity requiring this
court's interference.
6. Heard Sri. Amresh S. Roja, leearned counsel for the
petitioner and perused papers and the amendment
application which has been filed.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6657
7. What is sought for is to bring certain additional
properties on record. Though the said application has
been filed after the commencement of trial, in fact,
after disposal of the suit and after remand by an
appellate Court, I am of the considered opinion that
the inclusion of two other properties which are
claimed to be joint family properties would not cause
any harm or injustice to the petitioners. It is always
available to the petitioners to establish that those
properties are not joint family properties and or that
those properties are not amenable for partition. Any
suit for partition would have to encompass all the
properties of the family so as to prevent multiplicity
of proceedings. In that view of the matter, I do not
find any infirmity in the order passed by the trial
Court. The above petition stands dismissed at the
stage of admission itself.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
SVH
