IN THE HIGH COURT OF KA.RN.A.'I'AKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA DATED THIS THE 47" DAY OF MARCH, 2010..__ BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT J Q' WRIT PETITION No.80795Q1"«*2009 BETWEEN 1.
SMT. SAVITRIBAI,
W/O GOKARNA PUKALE, 4
MAJOR, occ. HOUSEHOLD_WQRF;,
R/O BIJAPUR, , ..
TQ. &DIS’I’. BIJAPUR.” ‘
s/0 GOKARREA PUKALEQ’; M
AGED1.,24–.YEARS’-,.. ._ ~
occ. S”£’UDENT,'”‘ ”
R/O BIJAPUR, ‘ . _ _%
TQ. AND DIST. BIJAPUR.
‘ .3/0, G~Q”E<IARNA PUKALE,
% AGED A} YEAR'S,
occ; sTU'DE3Nr,
R/0 BIJAPUR,
TQ. DIST. BIJAPUR.
5]” ‘;L V~71{E\TOD.
“‘8/OAGOKARNA PUKALE,
TQ
AGED 20 YEARS.
OCC: STUDENT.
R/O BIJAPUR.
TQ. AND DIST. BIJAPUR.
[BY SR1 R B ANNEPPANAVAR, ADV.,)
AND
1. SOMANNA, _
S/O KALLAPPA UMARANI; M
MAJOR, occ. NIL,
R/O GORNAL, 5
TQ. & DIST. BIJAPUR. A_
2. SHARANAPPA, _ 3 A
S/O KALLAPPA”U%VLARANi,V.’; ”
AGED _
occ. RETIRED L13.U;B%’R_EGESTRAR, M A
R/O WARL1;\Ia;);;11, ‘_
CTS NO.3’1’9.,,if. ‘V _ _
BAsAVrEsHWA1~rROAI3V,TV”V. ~ A
BIJAPUR, 4.
TQ. & DIST. ABIJAPURA;
3. S§IAS~HIKAN’1′.t
” As’/0 ‘GQKARNA PUKALE.
»A(3EI) %43.y§«;p.Rs,
‘ -HOCC. “TAI.LOR,,
RA/o.%KoLEiAP:UR ROAD.
RA1\/__INA_GAR=CHOUGALE PLOT,
AT SANQLI (MAHARASHTRA).
* _ S/-O..GOKARNA PUKALE,
AGED 28 YEARS.
OCC. MECHANIC.
R/ O KOLHAPUR ROAD.
RAMNAGAR CHOUGALE PLOT,
AT SAN GL1 [MAHARASHTRA].
5. LEELABAI,
W/O MOHAN PUKALE,
MAJOR, OCC. HOUSEHOLD
WORK, R/O SOMADEVAREIAITI,
TQ. AND DIST. BIJAPUR.
6. ANIL, s/0 GOKARNA PUKALE--, MAJOR, ' occ. SERVICE, R/O HUBLI, C TQ. AND DIST. OLCROESPONDENTS
(BY SRI__ KQIUJALAGI, ADV., FOR
R1–5;:’lR6C’SEF£VEDjjl’
C7, C#*$****
_.This vV1″i_t petition “is filed under Articles 226 and
22’Z«5pf the Constxiufion of India, praying to quash the
1. “”impu’gri.ed order dated 1.12.2008 passed by the 1st Add}.
C_iVil_Ju_dge..MV[Sr. D11], Bijapur in
A H-I.an;-No.v.IlEV..p’ro’du1eed as Annexure E and et(:.,
This .}CA3:’e”Ccition coming on for
O.S. No.26-4/2002 on
2 preliminary hearing in
groupithis day, the Court made the following:
0 R D E R
Plaintiffs are the petitioners. Suit is filed.
for possession of the suit property on
adjustments of Rs.55.000/– (Rupees. usancli if
only) due from the defendants. I if if A if A
2. Suffice it to say their
said suit an application is loyipthe respoildents to
come on record underfthe CPC. The
said applicat_i,onQvy~’as the plaintiffs.
Noturi1t}ista11rli.r1gll::f}};i’e tllé’ learned trial judge has
against which the plaintiffs
are before Cotirtl
A’R«…I3_d.vAnneppanaVar, learned Counsel
plaintiffs submits that the applicants
la__l-Ie that the proposed defendant No.1 filed a
7?
are-‘fin eonnected with the family of the plaintiffs.
suit for partition and the said suit having dismissed, it
is not open for them to come and get themselves
impleaded in the proceedings with which they
way concerned. in d it
4. I have perused the impugned 2.
the claim of the applicants is that aretth’e
from the first wife of dece’ase_d («}’ok’arna
reasons given for not Subject
matter is because and they were
eaking out thei;’«1ive1iho():,/5i.:’at Be that as it
may, one wotild.havep’t’o::co.n’si”der whether the applicants
are necessearyyv ai1du*prop_er parties to the case without
whoinypthe 115″ “cannot. be adjudicated. Apparently the
vaguely suggested that they are the
ch_il”dren’ “of; first wife. Except of stating so no
docinnents are produced. That apart the suit was also
it “ff them seeking partition in respect of the property
//
which has been dismissed. Indeed it is also to be
noticed that the plaintiff is the dominent litis and is
entitled to choose his opponent. The application
the applicants Certainly cannot be said th_at””t}iey: _
proper and necessary parties. Playing giVe11v–‘anx_i:Qu_s ‘*
consideration, I am of the View th4at;t’h..eI b.1fde1*&
passed by the learned trial to
come on record is liable the
following order is pass”edt:p.. ; ‘4
f*’etition.VV””isf-.c::allewfed.. ‘ The impugned order at
Armexure” E III is re} ected.
” ‘Riile issuedmand made absolute.
Std?”
EUDGE