Karnataka High Court
Sri. Syed Hameed vs Sri Ramesh on 21 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:27323
W.P. No.15221/2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.15221/2020 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SYED HAMEED
S/O LATE SRI. SYED RASHOOL
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT. HAJINAGAR LAYOUT
RAMANAGARA TOWN
Digitally signed RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
by RUPA V ...PETITIONER
Location: High (BY SRI. G.B. NANDISH GOWDA, ADV., FOR
Court of SRI. R.B. SADASIVAPPA, ADV.,)
karnataka
AND:
1. SRI. RAMESH
S/O LATE SRI. THIMMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
2. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE SRI. THIMMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.790
2ND MAIN ROAD, 4TH CROSS
BAHUBALINAGARA
JALAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 013.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA R. NAIK, ADV., FOR R1 & R2)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 25.11.2020 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAMANAGARA ON I.A.NO.16
IN O.S.NO.234/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-A & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:27323
W.P. No.15221/2020
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed seeking for the following relief:
"Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned order dated 25.11.2020 passed by the court of
the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara on IA
No.16 in O.S.No.234/2014 vide Annexure-A."
2. Heard.
3. Sri.G.B.Nandish Gowda, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a suit for
specific performance of the agreement of sale executed by the
defendant Nos.1 and 2. During the pendency of the suit, the
defendant No.2 died and his legal heirs i.e. his wife and one
son were brought on record. It is submitted that during the
cross-examination of DW-2, it was brought to the knowledge of
the petitioner-plaintiff that the deceased defendant No.2 has
two more children. Hence, an application came to be filed to
implead them as parties to the suit. However, the Trial Court,
solely on the ground that the application is filed belatedly when
the matter is posted for judgment, rejected the same with
costs. It is submitted that the petitioner-plaintiff did not have
NC: 2025:KHC:27323
HC-KAR
any knowledge with regard to the other legal heirs of the
defendant No.2. Hence, he could not bring the proposed
defendants on record. It is submitted that already the wife and
one son of the deceased defendant No.2 is on record and no
prejudice would be caused to the proposed defendants. In
support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the
decision of this Court in the case of BILIGIRI NAIKA Vs.
BILIGIRINAIKA @ SUBHANAIKA AND ANR.1
He seeks to allow the petition.
4. Per contra, Sri.Ramachandra R.Naik, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents supports the impugned
order of the Trial Court and submits that there is an enormous
delay in filing the application for impleadment. The said
application was filed when the matter was posted for judgment.
It is submitted that the cross-examination of DW-2 was held on
26.02.2018. However, the application for impleadment was
filed on 11.09.2020, which has been rightly rejected by the
Trial Court. He seeks to dismiss the petition.
W.P.No.7376/2008 decided on 02.07.10
NC: 2025:KHC:27323
HC-KAR
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material
available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to
the arguments advanced on both the sides.
6. The undisputed facts between the parties are that
the petitioner has filed O.S.No.234/2014 seeking the relief of
specific performance of the agreement of sale alleged to have
been executed by defendants. The material on record indicates
that the defendant No.2 died during the pendency of the said
suit. The petitioner filed an application seeking to bring legal
heirs of the defendant No.2 on record in the pending suit, which
came to be allowed and the wife and one son of the defendant
No.2 were brought on record. The application for impleadment
i.e. I.A.No.16 filed by the petitioner indicates that the
defendant No.2 had two more children which came to the
knowledge of the petitioner only during the cross-examination
of DW-2. Hence, he filed an application for impleadment. In
my considered view, the Trial Court has committed a grave
error in rejecting the application solely on the ground that the
application is filed belatedly. This Court, in the case of
NC: 2025:KHC:27323
HC-KAR
BILIGIRI NAIKA referred supra, following the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held at paragraph 10 as under:
"10. The feature that distinguishes this case from the
facts of Arjun Singh and Rabiya Bi Kassim's case (supra)
is that in the reported cases, the I.A.s were filed when
the matter was reserved for judgment. In the instant
case, thought the matter was posted for judgment once,
it was reopened not at the instance of any party, but by
the Court suo-motu. On the reopening of the case by
the Trial Court and in the course of further hearing, the
three I.A.s are filed. Thus, there was no legal
impediment in filing the three I.A.s."
7. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid down by
this Court following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
I am of the considered view that no prejudice or injustice would
be caused to the defendants if the proposed defendants are
brought on record. It is also brought to the notice of the Court
that the Presiding Officer is transferred and the matter is now
pending for hearing. Taking note of the same, I am of the
considered view that the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
parties that the suit is of the year 2014 and they seek for a
direction to the Trial Court for early disposal of the suit. I am
NC: 2025:KHC:27323
HC-KAR
of the considered view that no positive direction can be issued
to the Trial Court to dispose of the suit in a time bound
manner. However, the Trial Court can take note of the
pendency of the cases before it and considering the case
management flow, shall take appropriate steps to dispose of
the suit in accordance with law.
9. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 25.11.2020 passed on
I.A.No.16 in O.S.No.234/2014 by the Additional
Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramangara, is set aside.
Consequently, I.A.No.16 filed by the petitioner-
plaintiff under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section
151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is
allowed.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
