Karnataka High Court
Mallappa vs Muradevi on 13 August, 2025
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4650
WP No. 200572 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.200572 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
MALLAPPA
S/O GOPAL DISKALKAR @ DIJGALAKAR,
AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O KAKHANDAKI, TQ. & DIST. VIJAYAPURA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. MURADEVI
W/O VASUDEV DISAKALKAR @ DIJAGALAKAR,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O PUNE-411002.
MAHARASHTRA STATE.
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA 2. SUKHADEV
MR S/O GOPAL DISKALKAR @ DIJAGALAKAR,
Location: HIGH AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA R/O KAKHANDAKI,
TQ. & DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586113.
3. PARASHURAM
S/O GOPAL DISKALKAR @ DIJAGALAKAR,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O KAKHANDAKI,
TQ. & DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586113.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JIDAGE KAILASH C, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
V/O DATED 28.02.2025 NOTICE TO
R2 & R3 ARE DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4650
WP No. 200572 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS
UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Manvendra Reddy., counsel for the petitioner and
Sri.Jidage Kailash.C., counsel for respondent No.1 have
appeared in person.
2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking following
reliefs:
I. Issue a Writ of Certiorari to set aside the order
dated:18.12.2024 passed by the Court of III Addl.
Senior Civil Judge, Vijayapura on memo filed by the
petitioner/ defendant No.1 for adopting the written
statement of defendant No.2 in O.S.No.128/2012
vide Annexure-E.
II. Issue a Writ of Mandamus thereby permit the
petitioner to adopt the written statement of
defendant No.2 in the suit O.S.NO.128/2012 on the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4650
HC-KAR
file of III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayapura, in the
proceedings.
3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several
contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers
with care.
4. Suffice it to note that the plaintiff filed a suit for
partition and separate possession in O.S.No.128/2012. The
petitioner - Mr.Mallappa was the first defendant and was placed
ex-parte. The Trial Court vide Judgment and Decree dated
20.08.2013 passed an ex-parte decree. Mr.Sukhadev -
Defendant No.2 questioned the ex-parte decree under Order 9
Rule 13 of CPC in Civil Misc. No.10/2015. The same came to be
dismissed on 03.01.2019. As against the said order, an appeal
was filed in M.A.No.04/2019 and the same was dismissed on
07.11.2022. Aggrieved by the said order, a Writ Petition was
filed before this Court in W.P.No.201306/2023. This Court vide
order dated 25.11.2024 set-aside the ex-parte decree as far as
defendant No.2, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- and
defendant No.2 was permitted to file written statement. After
restoration of the suit, defendant No.1 who was placed ex-parte
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4650
HC-KAR
before the Trial Court, without seeking setting aside of the ex-
parte decree, filed a memo to adopt the written statement of
defendant No.2 and the same was rejected by the Trial Court.
The rejection is just and proper. The reason is apparent.
Counsel for respondent No.1 has furnished the copy of
Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court in
O.S.No.128/2012. A perusal of the same reflects that the
petitioner was defendant No.1 and was placed ex-parte. Till the
ex-parte decree is set-aside in respect of defendant No.1, he
cannot contest the suit. Moreover, this Court has set-aside the
Judgment and decree only in respect of defendant No.2. Hence,
the Trial Court is justified in declining the request of defendant
No.1 to adopt the written statement filed by defendant No.2. I
find no grounds to interfere with the order of the Trial Court.
The Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI)
JUDGE
MRP
