AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—This writ petition is by 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs in O.S. No. 253/ 1981, a suit which had been filed for partition of the suit schedule properties and as persons, who are the daughters of late B.M. Muniswamappa and directed against the order dated 18.3.2003 passed on I.A. Nos. 23 and 24 filed in that suit. I.A. No. 23 had been filed by the very writ petitioners and the 1st plaintiff together to place the position before the Court to the effect that the 2nd defendant B.M. Ramaswamy brother of the plaintiffs, who had died intestate had not survived by any other heirs other than the plaintiffs and his other brothers and therefore, there is no need for bringing any other persons on record as legal heirs of the deceased B.M. Ramaswamy.
However, I.A. No. 24 came to be filed by persons claiming to be wife and three children of B.M. Ramaswamy viz., Wife - Smt R. Padmavathi, Son - Mr. B.R. Mohan Raj, and daughters - Miss. B.R. Janabai & Miss. B.R. Banumathi, the last applicant being a minor. Applicants wanted to come on record as legal heirs of deceased B.M. Ramaswamy.
These applications were heard at some length. Ultimately the learned Judge of the Trial Court passed a common order on these applications allowing the application of the wife and children of late B.M. Ramaswamy and rejecting the application filed by the plaintiffs.
It is aggrieved by this order, the present writ petition and the main ground urged in support of this petition is that in a suit that had been filed by one brother and the present writ petitioners and all children of late Muniswamappa in O.S. No. 8842/1980, the persons, who claim as wife, daughters and son of late B.M. Ramaswamy had been impleaded as defendant Nos. 6 to 8 but describing them as the wife and children of one K.C. Kanna Rao and not as wife and children of late B.M. Ramaswamy and seeking for partition of the suit property. A finding had been recorded by the trial court that the persons, who claim as the wife and children of late B.M. Ramaswamy are not so, and on the other hand, the plaintiffs therein had been given a share in the family properties, on the premise that the share of late B.M. Ramaswamy enures to the benefit of other members of the family and not to persons, who claim as wife and children of late B.M. Ramaswamy and therefore, it is contended that the allowing of I.A. No. 24 and rejecting I.A. No. 23 is clearly contrary to the finding recorded in the suit in O.S. No. 8842/1980 and on such premise the writ petition is filed.
This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 18.3.2003 passed on I.A. Nos. 23 and 24. Though the petition was admitted way back on 25.4.2005 and even an interim order had been granted staying the further proceedings in the suit thereafter, not much progress is seen and for one reason or the other, the matter is coming up for orders before the Court and also got entangled with RFA Nos. 189/2002, 298/2002 and 636/2002, which has further delayed the disposal of the writ petition.
Today the matter is listed for orders on Misc. W 321/2009 and I.A.I to IV/2012 along with Regular First Appeals. Sri Shankar S. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners submits that it is proper that the Regular First Appeals should be disposed off first as it will have a bearing on the order, particularly, as RFA No. 189/2002 is an appeal preferred against the judgment and decree passed in OS. No. 8842/1980 by the very persons, who had claimed as wife and children of deceased B.M. Rama Swamy.
A writ petition is not on par with an appeal more so, a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the scope of writ petition in nature is very less. It is not necessary to go into the merits of the order passed on I.A. Nos. 23 and 24 in O.S. No. 253/1981.
The suit itself, we find was originally numbered as O.S. No. 25/1966 and it had remained and got the new number O.S. No. 253/1981 and continues to remain pending on the file of the trial court, in the wake of the interim order passed by this court in the above writ petition.
However, in the meanwhile, subsequent suits have stolen march over this suit and have resulted in decree. Be that as it may, we find it not expedient to go into the merits of the order in this writ petition and at this stage, but nevertheless, we reserve liberty to the writ petitioners to agitate the matter as and when it becomes necessary and in the event the order affects the interest of the parties on the disposal of the main suit. Subject to the above observation, we dismiss this writ petition as one not warranting interference. Consequently all applications are rejected. Interim order is vacated. The suit to proceed to its logical conclusion.