(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to, i) issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari by quashing Annexure-K order dated 01.04.2025 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Lingasugur in E.P.No.23/2022 and allow the Ia.No.3 filed u/O 1 Rule 10(2) CPC. ii) issue a writ, direction or order in the Nature of certiorari by quashing Annexure-D order dated 19.12.2023 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Lingasugur in E.P.No.23/2022 and allow the IA.No.3 filed u/O 21 Rule 66 CPC. but I.A.No.as shown as Ia.No.II In Application. Iii) issue a writ, direction or order which deem fit under the fact and circumstances of the case.)

Oral Order

1. The petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the following reliefs:

          "(i) Issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari by quashing Annexure-K order dated 01.04.2025 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Lingasugur, in E.P.No.23/2022 and allow I.A.No.3 filed U/o. 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC;

          (ii) Issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari by quashing Annexure-E order dated 19.12.2023 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Lingasugur, in E.P.No.23/2022 on I.A.No.3 filed U/o. 21 Rule 66 CPC.

          (iii) Issue a writ, direction or order which deem fit under the fact and circumstances of the case."

2. Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

3. Respondent No.2 herein who is the brother of the petitioner appears to have entered into an agreement for sale in respect of the property bearing Survey No.84, measuring 4 acres, situated at Medikanal Tanda, Taluk Lingasugur, District Raichur. Subsequently, respondent No.1 had filed O.S.No.8/2019 before the jurisdictional Civil Court seeking relief of specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 19.03.2018 executed in favour of respondent No.2 herein. The said suit was partly decreed on 22.09.2021 and the Trial Court had held that, the respondent No.1 herein was entitled only for refund of the earnest money paid by him to the respondent No.2 herein. Execution Petition No.23/2022 is filed before the jurisdictional Court by respondent No.1 to execute the ex- parte decree dated 22.09.2021 passed in O.S.No.8/2019.

4. In the meanwhile, the petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.7/2018 before the jurisdictional Civil Court seeking relief of partition and separate possession of the joint family property. The aforesaid land bearing Survey No.84 is one of the subject matter of the suit for partition filed by the petitioner. Subsequently, the said suit was decreed and in the final decree proceedings, i.e. FDP No.8/2018 the property bearing Survey No.84 which is the subject matter of the sale agreement between respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein is said to have allotted to the share of the petitioner herein.

5. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner had filed an application in I.A.No.3 under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC., in Execution Petition No.23/2022. The said application was opposed by respondent No.1 herein by filing objection. The Trial Court vide order dated 01.04.2025 has rejected I.A.No.3 filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

6. The material on record would go show that, the property which is the subject matter of the sale agreement between the respondent No.1 and 2 herein, which is now sought to be brought to sale in Execution Petition No.23/2022 has been allotted to the share of the petitioner herein, in FDP No.8/2018.

7. The Trial Court without properly appreciating the aforesaid aspect of the matter, has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC., seeking his impleadment in Execution Petition No.23/2022.

8. A perusal of the order impugned would go to show that, the Trial Court has not assigned any cogent reason for dismissing the application of the petitioner. In the FDP proceedings, the land which is now sought to be brought for sale in E.P.No.23/2022 has been allotted to the share of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is a just and proper party who is required to be heard in E.P.No.23/2022.

9. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that, the Trial Court was not justified in passing the order impugned dismissing I.A.No.3 filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC.

10. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

          (i) The writ petition is allowed;

          (ii) The impugned order at Annexure-E dated 01.04.2025 passed on I.A.No.3 in E.P.No.23/2022 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC Court, Lingasugur is set aside and the application i.e. I.A.No.3 filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, in Execution Petition No.23/2022 stands allowed.