High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Rejection of Application to Implead Legal Representatives in Partition Suit — Held That Application Under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC Was Not Maintainable as Defendant No.2 Was Already on Record and No Abatement Had Occurred

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Sri Janardhana Suvarna, was Defendant No.2 in O.S.No.233/2016, a suit for partition and separate possession filed by Respondent No.1 (Smt. Rathnavathi L Rao) against the petitioner, Respondent No.2 (M/s. Vishweshwari Boat, a partnership firm) as Defendant No.1, and Respondent No.3 (Sri Praveen) as Defendant No.3. During the pendency of the suit, Defendant No.1 (the partnership firm) was dissolved, and its partners died. The petitioner filed I.A.No.10 under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased partners of Defendant No.1. The Trial Court, by order dated 19.10.2020, rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner was not the plaintiff and the suit had not abated. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court examined the maintainability of the application. It noted that Order 22 Rule 4 CPC applies only when a party to the suit dies and the right to sue survives, but the provision is primarily for the benefit of the plaintiff to continue the suit. The petitioner, being a co-defendant, could not invoke this provision to implead legal representatives of another defendant. The Court further observed that no abatement had occurred as the plaintiff had not taken steps to implead the legal representatives within the prescribed time. The application was premature and not maintainable. The High Court also held that the Trial Court could not have allowed the application under Section 151 CPC as inherent powers cannot be invoked when a specific provision (Order 22 Rule 4) is not applicable. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure Code - Impleadment of Legal Representatives - Order 22 Rule 4 CPC - Maintainability - The petitioner, Defendant No.2 in a partition suit, filed I.A.No.10 under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased Defendant No.1. The Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner was not the plaintiff and the suit had not abated. The High Court upheld the rejection, holding that Order 22 Rule 4 CPC applies only when a party to the suit dies and the right to sue survives, but the petitioner being a co-defendant could not invoke this provision to implead legal representatives of another defendant. The application was not maintainable as the suit continued against the surviving defendants. (Paras 1-10)

B) Civil Procedure Code - Abatement of Suit - Order 22 Rule 4 CPC - The Court observed that no abatement had occurred in the suit as the plaintiff had not taken steps to implead the legal representatives of deceased Defendant No.1 within the prescribed time. The petitioner's application was premature and not maintainable. (Paras 8-10)

C) Civil Procedure Code - Inherent Powers - Section 151 CPC - The Court held that the Trial Court could not have allowed the application under Section 151 CPC as the specific provision of Order 22 Rule 4 CPC was not applicable. The inherent powers cannot be invoked when there is a specific provision covering the situation. (Para 10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting I.A.No.10 filed by the petitioner under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC seeking to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased Defendant No.1, when the suit was for partition and separate possession and the petitioner himself was already a party as Defendant No.2.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Trial Court's order dated 19.10.2020 rejecting I.A.No.10. The Court held that the application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC was not maintainable as the petitioner was a co-defendant and not the plaintiff, and no abatement had occurred. The inherent powers under Section 151 CPC could not be invoked as a specific provision was not applicable.

Law Points

  • Order 22 Rule 4 CPC
  • Order 1 Rule 10 CPC
  • Section 151 CPC
  • Article 227 Constitution of India
  • Impleadment of legal representatives
  • Abatement of suit
  • Maintainability of application
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (KAR) (09) 39

Writ Petition No.13935 of 2021 (GM-CPC)

2025-09-08

Dr. Justice K. Manmadha Rao

Sri. H.D. Somesha, Advocate for Sri. Rajarama S., Advocate

Sri Janardhana Suvarna

Smt. Rathnavathi L Rao, M/s. Vishweshwari (Boat), Sri Praveen

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order rejecting an application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC in a partition suit.

Remedy Sought

The petitioner (Defendant No.2) sought to set aside the Trial Court's order dated 19.10.2020 rejecting I.A.No.10 and to allow the application to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased Defendant No.1.

Filing Reason

The petitioner filed the application because Defendant No.1 (a partnership firm) was dissolved and its partners died, and the petitioner wanted to bring their legal representatives on record to effectively defend the suit.

Previous Decisions

The Trial Court (IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi) rejected I.A.No.10 on 19.10.2020, holding that the petitioner was not the plaintiff and the suit had not abated.

Issues

Whether the application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC filed by a co-defendant to bring on record legal representatives of another defendant is maintainable. Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the application on the ground that the petitioner was not the plaintiff and no abatement had occurred.

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioner argued that since Defendant No.1 was dissolved and its partners died, it was necessary to bring their legal representatives on record to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to effectively adjudicate the partition suit. The respondents did not appear or contest the petition.

Ratio Decidendi

An application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC to bring on record legal representatives of a deceased defendant is maintainable only by the plaintiff or by a party whose rights are affected by the abatement. A co-defendant cannot invoke this provision to implead legal representatives of another defendant, especially when the suit has not abated and the plaintiff has not taken steps. The inherent powers under Section 151 CPC cannot be used to circumvent the specific provisions of Order 22 Rule 4.

Judgment Excerpts

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the Order dated 19.10.2020 passed in O.S.No.233/2016 on the file of IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi on I.A.No.10 and allow the same. The petitioner herein is the Defendant No.2 and Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 were Plaintiff, Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.3 respectively before the Trial Court. The Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner was not the plaintiff and the suit had not abated.

Procedural History

The suit O.S.No.233/2016 was filed by Respondent No.1 (plaintiff) for partition and separate possession. During pendency, Defendant No.1 (partnership firm) was dissolved and its partners died. The petitioner (Defendant No.2) filed I.A.No.10 under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased Defendant No.1. The Trial Court rejected the application on 19.10.2020. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka, which was heard and reserved on 01.08.2025 and pronounced on 08.09.2025.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order 22 Rule 4, Section 151, Order 1 Rule 10
  • Constitution of India: Article 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Quashes Proceedings Against Public Servant in Private Complaint for Want of Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC — Criminal Proceedings Initiated Without Mandatory Sanction Are Void Ab Initio
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Rejection of Application to Implead Legal Representatives in Partition Suit — Held That Application Under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC Was Not Maintainable as Defendant No.2 Was Already on Record a...