Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Hanamavva, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18.06.2026 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Badami, in FDP No. 1/2014, allowing the application filed by the legal representatives of deceased defendants under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to come on record. The petitioner was the plaintiff in a partition suit (O.S. No. 1/2014) which was decreed ex parte. During the final decree proceedings (FDP No. 1/2014), some defendants died and their legal representatives sought impleadment. The trial court allowed the application. The petitioner contended that the order was erroneous as the legal representatives were not necessary parties and that the application was filed belatedly. The High Court examined the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC and Article 227. It noted that the impugned order was an interlocutory order that did not finally decide any rights of the parties. The court observed that the petitioner failed to show any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the trial court's order. The court also noted that the impleadment of legal representatives was necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to ensure that the final decree is binding on all concerned. The High Court held that the trial court had correctly exercised its discretion in allowing the impleadment. The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merits, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Impleadment of Legal Representatives - Order 22 Rule 4 CPC - Revision under Section 115 CPC - The petitioner challenged the trial court's order allowing impleadment of legal representatives of deceased defendants in a partition suit. The High Court held that the order was interlocutory and did not decide any rights of parties, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error or prejudice. The revision petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-5) B) Civil Procedure Code - Revision - Interlocutory Orders - Section 115 CPC - The court reiterated that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is limited to cases where the subordinate court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, or has failed to exercise jurisdiction, or has acted illegally or with material irregularity. The impugned order did not fall within any of these categories. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's order allowing impleadment of legal representatives of deceased defendants under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC suffers from any jurisdictional error warranting interference under Section 115 CPC.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the trial court's order allowing impleadment of legal representatives was interlocutory and did not suffer from any jurisdictional error. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order 22 Rule 4 CPC
- Section 115 CPC
- Impleadment of legal representatives
- Revision against interlocutory order
- Partition suit
- Abatement of suit
