AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—An application filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC, to permit them to come on record in FDP No. 6/2007 pending on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Ron, having been disallowed and an order of rejection having been passed on 10.03.2010, feeling aggrieved, this writ petition was filed on 12.04.2010. Heard Shri Chandrashekar Patil, learned advocate for the petitioner and Miss Nandini Somapur, learned Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Hanumanthareddy Sahukar, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 3, 6 and 7 and perused the writ petition record.
The petitioners have filed O.S. No. 14/2008 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Ron, against the respondents. In the said suit, amongst others it has been averred as follows:
7) It is learnt to the Plaintiffs that, the deft. No. 1 colluding with other defendants without the knowledge, consent and behind the back of these plaintiffs got obtained the decree the decree from the Hon''ble Civil Judge, Sr. Dn. Gadag in O.S. No. 155/1988 & R.A. No. 16/2000 & R.S.A. No. 118/2001 &FDP No. 6/2007 just to gulp the legitimate shares of the Plaintiffs. Those proceedings are not binding to the extent of share of the plaintiffs in any manner. The defts. were intentionally not made these plaintiffs as the parties to the said proceedings with ulterior motive.
The said suit has been instituted to grant the following reliefs.
a) The decree may please be passed by awarding 1/25 each shares of the plaintiffs in all the suit scheduled properties by metes and bounds.
b) The separate possession of the suit scheduled properties to the extent of plaintiffs share may kindly be handed over to the plaintiffs.
c) The previous proceeding taken place between the defts. are not binding on share of the plaintiffs.
d) The Court Commissioner may please be appointed to effect the partition as per Sec. 54 of CPC.
e) Mesne profits may be awarded to the Plaintiffs.
f) Cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff.
g) Any other reliefs deems fit may kindly be awarded to the plaintiffs.
Since the petitioners have instituted O.S. No. 14/2005 to pass decree for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit properties, by holding the previous proceedings taken place between the defendants, as not binding on them, the suit properties being common, the disallowing of application filed in FDP No. 6/2007 cannot be held as irrational. If the petitioners had not instituted O.S. No. 14/2008 and sought the reliefs, noticed supra, their application for impleading in FDP No. 6/2007 could have been considered. Petitioners have prosecuted O.S. No. 14/2008 and Shri Chandrashekar P. Patil submits that the said suit is at the stage of arguments. If that be so, the suit should be decided expeditiously and within a period of three months from the next hearing date.
In the said view of the matter, I do not find justification to interfere with the impugned order. Petition is rejected, subject to the observations made supra.
No costs