2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 38118
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
SMT KALAVVA W/O SUBBARAO SORATUR – Appellant
Versus
SMT TARAMATI D/O SUBBARAO SORATUR – Respondent
WP 104151/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 104151 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. KALAVVA W/O SUBBARAO SORATUR, AGE. 66 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. VISHWAKARMA NILAYA, SHRIDEVI NAGAR, OPP. K.M.F. HUBBALLI ROAD, DHARWAD-580 004.
… PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. TARAMATI D/O SUBBARAO SORATUR, AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. I.L. PATIL COMPOUND, SHIVANAND NAGAR, 2ND CROSS, DHARWAD-580 025.
Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR 2. JAYASHREE D/O SUBBARAO SORATUR, LAXMAN KATTIMANI AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, Location: HIGH COURT OF R/O. DIVATE GALLI, SAVADATTI, KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DIST. BELAGAVI-591 126.
Date: 2025.11.19 12:20:54 +0530
3. KUMARI BHARATI D/O SUBBARAO SORATUR, AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. I.L. PATIL COMPOUND, SHIVANAND NAGAR, 2ND CROSS, DHARWAD-580 001.
4. KUMARI ROOPA D/O SUBBARAO SORATUR, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. I.L. PATIL COMPOUND, SHIVANAND NAGAR, 2ND CROSS, DHARWAD-580 001.
5. SMT. PADMAVATI W/O BHIMARAO SORATUR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S., 6. MANJUNATH S/O BHIMARAO SORATUR, AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, 7. SMT. NETRAVATI W/O RAMESH PATTAR, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, 8. DATTATREYA S/O BHIMARAO SORATUR, AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, RESPONDENT NO.5 TO 8 ARE R/O. YALAKKI SHETTAR COLONY, VISHWARKARMA NILAYA, P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD-580 004. 9. SMT. PARAVVA @ PARVATI W/O HANAMANTH SORATUR, AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, 10. KUMAR VINAYAK S/O HANAMANTH SORATUR, AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, 11. KUMARI GAYATRI D/O HANAMANTH SORATUR, AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, 12. KUMAR NAGARAJ S/O HANAMANTH SORATUR, AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, RESPONDENT NO.9 TO 12 ARE R/O. VISHWAKARMA NILAY, SHRIDEVI NAGAR, OPP. K.M.F., HUBBALLI ROAD, DHARWAD-580 004.
13. SMT. SHARADABAI W/O CHANDRAKANT JANAMANE, AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, 14. SHRI. ANAND S/O CHANDRAKANT JANAMANE, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, 15. SHRI SANTOSH S/O CHANDRAKANT JANAMANE, AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, RESPONDENT NO.13 TO 15 ARE R/O. YALAKKI SHETTAR COLONY, P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD-580 004.
16. SRI. SURESH S/O MAHANTAPPA SHETTAR, AGE. 74 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. NRUPATUNGA HILL ROAD, MRUTUNJAYA NAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580 032.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH R. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. S.B. DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R16; SMT. P.R. BENTUR, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R12;
NOTICE TO R13 TO R15 ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, OR DIRECTION OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ANNEXURE-D DATED 11/06/2025 IN O.S. NO.164/2014, ON I.A. NO.48, ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DHARWAD.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 11.06.2025 passed on I.A.No.48 in O.S.No.164/2014 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Dharwad, For short, the ‘Trial Court’
2. The Trial Court rejected the application under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to implead the person who claimed to be the General Power of Attorney holder of the petitioner and respondents No.1 to 4. Accordingly, the application was dismissed by the Trial Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 would submit that the defendants No.1 to 4 have taken a specific contention that they have not executed any General Power of Attorney in favour of Suresh, S/o. Mahantappa Shekhar, who is sought to be impleaded as one of the defendants in the case. It is therefore his contention that said Suresh is a necessary party to the suit, since both the petitioner and defendants No.1 to 4 have levelled allegation against him. It is submitted that, in order to establish the contention that no General Power of Attorney was executed in favour