SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 41135

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CHAND S/O IMAMHUSSAIN KWARAMADDI ALIAS GOULI – Appellant
Versus
SIVANAIK S/O DHARMANAIK PATIL – Respondent
WP 103098/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 103098 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

CHAND S/O IMAMHUSSAIN KWARAMADDI @ GOULI,AGE. 75 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,R/O. GOULI GALLI, MALMADDI, DHARWAD.

… PETITIONER (BY SRI. N.H. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. SIVANAIK S/O DHARMANAIK PATIL, AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIKKAMALLIGAWAD, TQ. DHARWAD.

BABU S/O IMAMHUSSAIN KWARAMADDI Digitally signed by C LA H X A M N A D N RASHEKAR @ GOULI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S., KATTIMANI Location: HIGH C KA O R U N R A T T O A F KA DHARWAD BENCH 2. RADHABAI W/O BABU KWARAMADDI @ GOULI, AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. 6TH CROSS, GOULI GALLI, NEAR MUSTAK MANZIL, DHARWAD.

3. LAXMI W/O CHATTU HENCHAWALE, AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. 6TH CROSS, GOULI GALLI, NEAR MUSTAK MANZIL, DHARWAD, JANGALI S/O BABU KWARAMADDI @ GOULI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S.

4. BHAVITA W/O JANGALI KWARAMADDI @ GOULI, AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. GOULI GALLI, MALAMADDI,DHARWAD.

5. AKSHYA S/O JANGALI KWARAMADDI @ GOULI, AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. GOULI GALLI, MALAMADDI, DHARWAD.

6. SHIVANI D/O JANGALI KWARAMADDI @ GOULI, AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. GOULI GALLI, MALAMADDI, DHARWAD.

7. PRATIGYA D/O JANGALI KWARAMADDI @ GOULI, AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. GOULI GALLI, MALAMADDI,DHARWAD.

8. HEERA W/O RANNU GARAWALE, AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. 6TH CROSS, GOULI GALLI, NEAR MUSTAK MANZIL, DHARWAD. 9. RESHMA W/O KASHIM GOULI, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. 6TH CROSS, GOULI GALLI, NEAR MUSTAK MANZIL, DHARWAD.

10. BIBI W/O HERO DOULIWALE, AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. 6TH CROSS, GOULI GALLI,DHARWAD.

11. HASAN S/O BABU KWARAMADDI, AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. 6TH CROSS, GOULI GALLI, NEAR MUSTAK MANZIL, DHARWAD.

12. IMAM S/O BABU KWARAMADDI, AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. 6TH CROSS, GOULI GALLI, NEAR MUSTAK MANZIL, DHARWAD.

… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALLIGWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

NOTICE TO R2 TO R12 ARE DISPENSED WITH)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21/03/2025 ON I.A. NO.15 PASSED BY PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, DHARWAD IN O.S. NO.18/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION I.A. NO.XV FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S. NO.18/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-D.

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)

The petition is filed assailing the order rejecting the application seeking permission to file the written statement.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the suit was initially filed before the Civil Judge, Jr.Dvn. Dharwad, later, the present petitioner who was the defendant in the said suit appeared and contested the matter filed written statement and took a stand that the Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction. Accepting the contention, the plaint was returned and the plaintiff presented the plaint before the Senior Civil Judge, Dharwad. In the said suit, an additional written statement was sought to be filed by the defendant by filing an application in the year 2024 though the suit was transferred in the year 2021.

3. The plaintiff opposed the said application on two grounds:

(a) Delay;

(b) The stand taken in the earlier written statement and the stand taken in the second written statement are different and in the second written statement the defendant sought to take additional defenses.

4. It is also urged on behalf of the plaintiff that the defendants who filed the written statement have also sold the property on 03.06.2019.

5. The Trial Court accepted the objection and rejected the application.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that merely because some new grounds are raised in the second written statement sought to be filed, is not a ground to reject the applica

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top