logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2025 Kar HC 1990 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Karnataka
Case No : Writ Petition No. 15669 Of 2019 (GM-CPC)
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
Parties : M.G. Srinivas Versus Yellamma & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Shankar.S.Bhat, M. Srinivasaiah, Advocates. For the Respondents: S. Chandrashekar, Cicwk Holla, Advocates.
Date of Judgment : 10-12-2025
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 227 -

Comparative Citation:
2025 KHC 52152,
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India
- Order XXII Rule 4 r/w Section 151 CPC
- Order 39 Rule 1 and 2
- CPC

2. Catch Words:
Specific performance

3. Summary:
The petitioner filed a writ under Article 227 to challenge the Senior Civil Judge’s order rejecting I.A. Nos. 7‑9, which sought to bring additional legal representatives of a deceased defendant on record in O.S. No. 135/2012. The trial court dismissed the applications on the ground of delay, overlooking that earlier applications had already permitted the deceased’s wife, children, and son to be represented. The High Court noted that the suit had not abated and that the trial court erred in rejecting the later applications. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and granted the relief sought in the applications. It also directed the trial court to expedite disposal of the suit and dismissed any pending I.A.s.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

(Prayer: This WP is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the enitre records in O.S.No.135/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Anekal; quash the order dated 3.4.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Anekal Bengaluru District, in O.S.No.135/2012, rejecting the Ia-7 under Order XXII Rule 4 r/w Section 151 CPC, under Anenxure-A and etc.,)

Oral Order

1. Plaintiff is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order dated 03.04.2019 passed on I.A.Nos.7 to 9 in O.S.No.135/2012 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Anekal, Bangalore Rural District.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. Suit in O.S.No.135/2012 is filed by the petitioner herein before the Jurisdictional Civil Court at Anekal, Bangalore Rural District, seeking the relief of specific performance. In the said suit, contesting defendants have entered appearance and filed their written statement opposing the suit claim. It appears that during the pendency of the suit, defendant No.7-S.Narasaraju had died on 16.05.2016. I.A.No.7 to 9 were filed on behalf of the plaintiff to bring the legal representatives of deceased defendant No.7 on record. The proposed legal representatives had filed objections to the said applications. The Trial Court vide the order impugned has rejected I.A.Nos.7 to 9 and being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff is before this Court.

4. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that plaintiff had earlier filed an application in O.S.No.135/2012 after defendant No.7 had died to bring his son Ramesh Raju as the legal representative of deceased defendant No.7. The said application was filed on 01.09.2016 and the Trial Court had allowed the said application. In the meanwhile, challenging the rejection of I.A.No.2 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 by the Trial Court, the plaintiff had filed MFA No.7043/2012 and in the said appeal after the death of defendant No.7/respondent No.7 an application was filed to bring his wife and three children on record. It appears that the said application was allowed and the wife and children of S.Narasaraju were permitted to be brought on record as respondent Nos.7(a) to 7(d) in MFA No.7043/2012.

5. MFA No.7043/2012 was disposed of by this Court on 07.01.2019. After the disposal of MFA No.7043/2012, it appears that I.A.Nos.7 to 9 were filed to bring the other legal representatives of deceased defendant No.7 on record, who were already permitted to be brought on record in MFA No.7043/2012 along with Ramesh Raju, son of deceased defendant No.7, who is also said to be known as SNVL Narasimha Raju.

6. The Trial Court however has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and has rejected I.A.Nos.7 to 9 on the ground that the applications were filed belatedly. The Trial Court had failed to appreciate that one of the legal representatives of defendant No.7 was already brought on record and therefore, the suit had not abated as against defendant No.7. In addition to the same in MFA No.7043/2012 this Court has permitted to bring the wife and 3 children of deceased defendant No.7 as his legal representatives. Therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting I.A.Nos.7 to 9. Under the circumstances, the said order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

          (i) The writ Petition is allowed.

          (ii) The impugned order dated 03.04.2019 passed on I.A.Nos.7 to 9 in O.S.No.135/2012 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Anekal, Bangalore Rural District is set aside and consequently the prayer made in the said applications is granted.

          (iii) It is needless to state that in view of the time frame given by this Court in MFA No.7043/2012 for disposal of the suit, the Trial Court shall make endeavors to dispose of the suit at the earliest.

          Pending I.A's, if any, do not survive for consideration and the same are accordingly, disposed of.
 
  CDJLawJournal