IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.14525 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. M. GIRIJA W/O S. SUNDAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT. MEGALADODDI BEEDI MADDUR TOWN MANDYA DISTRICT-570001.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUNIL K.N. ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. B.S. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O ANGADI SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS.

SINCE DEAD REP. BY LR'S.

2. SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O ANGADI SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS BUSINESS.

3. SMT. THAYAMMA W/O DUDRAYYA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS HOUSE WIFE.

RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ARE R/AT.

CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE GORAVANAHALLI POST, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-570001.

[AMENDED AS PER THE ORDER DTD: 20.01.2025]

4. SRI. S. PADMANBHA S/O ANGADI SRINIVASA AGED MAJOR R/AT. NO.326, GAYATHRI NILAYA

2^ND MAIN, 1^ST CROSS NEW BDA LAYOUT BENGALURU-560085.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.M. MANOHAR &

SRI. C.V. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATES FOR R2 TO R4 V/O/DTD:20.01.2025, R2 TO R4 ARE TREATED AS LR'S OF DECEASED R1)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.01.2021, MADE ON IA FILED ON 01.01.2018 IN RA NO.51/2008, PASSED THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MADDUR, VIDE ANNEXURE-D & ETC.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 08.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

CAV ORDER

This writ petition is filed to quash the Order dated

28.01.2021, made on I.A filed on 01.01.2018 in R.A.No.51/2008, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Maddur.

2. The petitioner herein is the appellant in R.A.

No.51/2008 and respondent in RSA No.1773/2015.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

The interim applications dated 01.01.2018 are filed by the applicant under Order XXII Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XXII Rule 4 read with Section 151 of CPC, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking to set aside the abatement caused by the death of the respondent (who died on 25.12.2010), to bring his legal representatives (LRs) on record, and to condone the delay in filing such applications.

In the accompanying affidavit, the applicant states that she had preferred R.A.No.51/2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Maddur, (‘appellate Court’ for short) challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No.33/2007 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur (‘trial Court’ for short). The R.A.No.51/2008 was allowed by the appellate Court on 15.10.2011. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed Ex.Case No.26/2012 before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Maddur, seeking execution of the judgment and decree dated 15.10.2011. During subsequent execution proceedings, the applicant became aware that the original respondent, Angadi Srinivasa, had died during the pendency of the appeal. She states that neither the Court nor any party had intimated her of his death earlier. Upon discovering this, she impleaded the respondent’s LRs in the execution case.

The LRs of original respondent thereafter filed RSA No.1773/2015 before this Court, challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.10.2011 passed in R.A.No.51/2008. By judgment dated 23.04.2016, this Court allowed the appeal on the ground that the original defendant, Angadi Srinivasa, had expired on 25.12.2010, during the pendency of R.A.No.51/2008, and that his legal representatives were not brought on record before the first appellate Court. It was held that the decree passed in favour of the petitioner was against a dead person, and hence, the same was a nullity in law.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason for not bringing the legal representatives of deceased Angadi Srinivasa on record in R.A.No.51/2008 was that she was not aware of his death and was never informed of the same. After disposal of RSA No.1773/2015, the petitioner filed applications dated 01.01.2018 under Order XXII Rule 4 read with Section