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 Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Badami in O.S. No. 43/2006. The trial court had allowed an application filed by the legal representatives of the deceased defendants to come on record. The petitioner contended that the application was filed belatedly and that the trial court erred in allowing it. The respondents argued that the impleadment was necessary for the proper adjudication of the partition suit. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any prejudice or abuse of process. The court observed that the trial court's order was just and proper, and no interference was warranted under Article 227. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 1 Rule 10 - Impleadment of Legal Representatives - Partition Suit - The court considered whether the trial court's order allowing impleadment of legal representatives of deceased defendants was justified. The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any prejudice or abuse of process, and the impleadment was necessary for effective adjudication of the partition suit. (Paras 1-10)
B) Constitutional Law - Article 227 - Supervisory Jurisdiction - The court examined the scope of interference under Article 227. It held that the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction is limited and should not be exercised to correct every error of fact or law, but only to prevent grave injustice or abuse of process. The petitioner did not establish any such ground. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in allowing the application to implead legal representatives of deceased defendants in a partition suit, and whether the petitioner has made out a case for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the trial court's order was just and proper and no interference was warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Law Points
- Order 1 Rule 10 CPC
- Impleadment of legal representatives
- Partition suit
- Necessary party
- Proper party
- Abuse of process of court
- Prejudice
Case Details
2026 LawText (KAR) (06) 92
WP No. 110369 of 2014 (GM-CPC)
Smt. Hanamavva W/o Hanamappa Kanchigidad
Rangappa S/o Neelappa Holemmanavar (deceased by LRs) and others
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 of the trial court allowing impleadment of legal representatives in a partition suit.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the trial court's order dated 18.06.2026 allowing the application for impleadment of legal representatives of deceased defendants in O.S. No. 43/2006.
Filing Reason
The petitioner contended that the trial court erred in allowing the belated application for impleadment, causing prejudice to the petitioner.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Badami) allowed the application for impleadment on 18.06.2026.
Issues
Whether the trial court's order allowing impleadment of legal representatives was erroneous?
Whether the petitioner made out a case for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the application for impleadment was filed belatedly and the trial court ought not to have allowed it.
Respondents argued that the impleadment was necessary for effective adjudication of the partition suit and no prejudice was caused to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited and should not be exercised to correct every error of fact or law. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any prejudice or abuse of process, and the impleadment of legal representatives was necessary for effective adjudication of the partition suit.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner has not made out any case to interfere with the impugned order.
The trial court has rightly allowed the application for impleadment.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18.06.2026 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Badami in O.S. No. 43/2006, which allowed the application for impleadment of legal representatives of deceased defendants. The High Court heard the matter and dismissed the petition.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 1 Rule 10
- Constitution of India: Article 227
