IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.201721 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SUBHASHCHANDRA S/O LINGAPPA KONIN, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCC: LEGAL PRACTITIONER, R/O SHARAN NAGAR, KALABURAGI.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. R. S. SIDHAPURKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRIKANT S/O HAVANAPPA SITANOOR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O SHARAN NAGAR, KALABURAGI.

2. THE COMMISSIONER CITY CORPORATION, KALABURAGI …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D. P. AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

R1 IS SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES OF 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12.10.2018 PASSED ON I.A. NO. 5 TO 7 AND ORDER DATED 15.03.2021 PASSED ON I.A. NO. 10 ON O.S. NO. 499/2014 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT KALABURAGI, THE CERTIFIED COPIES OF WHICH ARE AT ANNEXURE-A9 AND 10 RESPECTIVELY AND ALLOW THE SAID INTERIM APPLICATIONS WITH COSTS.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The plaintiff in O.S.No.499/2014 pending on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge, Kalaburagi (henceforth referred to as ‘Trial Court’) is before this Court challenging an order dated 12.10.2018 by which, an application (I.A.No.V) filed under Order XXII Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth referred to as ‘CPC’) to bring the legal representatives of the deceased – defendant No.2 and an application (I.A.No.VI) filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay in filing the application to bring the legal representatives of the deceased – defendant No.2 as well as an application (I.A.No.VII) filed under Order XXII Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC for setting aside abatement of the suit against the legal representatives of the deceased – defendant No.2, were rejected. The plaintiff has also challenged an order dated 15.03.2021 by which, an application (I.A.No.X) filed by him under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC was rejected.

2. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. The petitioner herein was the plaintiff, while the respondent No.1 was defendant No.1 and respondent No.2 was defendant No.3 before the Trial Court.

3. A suit in O.S.No.499/2014 was filed for declaration of title, recovery of possession and for mandatory injunction. The suit was contested by the defendant Nos.1 and 2. The death of the defendant No.2 came to the knowledge of the plaintiff on 20.02.2017, following which, an application was filed to bring the legal representatives of the defendant No.2 on 23.02.2017. The plaintiff also filed applications for condonation of delay in filing the application to bring the legal representatives of defendant No.2 on record and for setting aside the abatement of the suit as against the legal representatives of defendant No.2.

4. The said applications were rejected by the Trial Court in terms of an order dated 12.10.2018 on the ground that the plaintiff and defendant No.2 were neighbors and that the plaintiff had knowledge of death of defendant No.2 on 14.11.2016 itself and that the delay in filing the application to bring the legal representatives of defendant No.2 was not genuine and bonafide.

5. Following the aforesaid order, the plaintiff filed an application (I.A.No.X) under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC to implead the legal representatives of the deceased - defendant No.2, which also was dismissed in terms of the order dated

15.03.2021.

6. The plaintiff is therefore, before this Court challenging the aforesaid orders.

7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the death of defendant No.2 on 14.11.2016 was not informed to the Court and therefore, the plaintiff was not aware of the death of defendant No.2. He contends