LAWS(KAR)-2013-9-84

LAXMAWWA Vs. SADASHIV

Decided On September 06, 2013
Laxmawwa Appellant
V/S
SADASHIV Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O.S. No. 260 of 1996 filed by respondents 2 and 3 against respondents 1 and 4 herein, in the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mudhol, to pass a decree for partition and separate possession was allowed and a preliminary decree was passed on 16-6-2001. In pursuance thereof, Final Decree Proceeding No. 1 of 2002 has been filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 260 of 1996, under Order 20, Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. In the said proceeding, petitioner filed I.A. No. 6 on 8-12-2008, to permit her to come on record as opponent/defendant 3 and contest the matter. Application having been opposed, by filing statement of objections on 15-12-2008, learned Trial Judge having passed an order of dismissal on 1-4-2009, this writ petition has been filed by the applicant in I.A. No. 6. Respondents 2 and 3 i.e., plaintiff in O.S. No. 260 of 1996 and the applicants in F.D.P. No. 1 of 2002, have filed statement of objections and have produced copies of the plaint in O.S. No. 8 of 2002 and order sheet of the suit, as Annexures-R1 and R2. Annexure-F to the writ petition shows that the petitioner has instituted O.S. No. 503 of 2009 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gokak, to grant the following reliefs.--

(2.) Heard the learned Advocates on both sides and perused writ petition record.

(3.) Undeniably, O.S. No. 8 of 2002 filed by the petitioner in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Mudhol, was dismissed for non-prosecution on 11-6-2003. Petitioner has instituted O.S. No. 503 of 2009 vide Annexure-F, against the respondents, to pass a decree in terms of the prayers noticed supra. If the petitioner were to succeed in O.S. No. 503 of 2009, the preliminary decree passed in O.S. No. 260 of 1996 and the final decree which may be drawn in pursuance thereof, would not bind the petitioners' rights, which she has to establish in O.S. No. 503 of 2009. In the said view of the matter, it is unnecessary to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.