SRI SURESH RAMACHANDRA MAGADUM vs SRI ANIL RAMACHANDRA MAGADUM

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17614
WP No. 106614 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020138652026



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

WRIT PETITION NO. 106614 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. SURESH RAMACHANDRA MAGADUM
AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MOLE, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI.
NOW R/O. GURUVAR PET MIRAJ,
TQ. MIRAJ, DIST. SANGLI-416 416.
…PETITIONER




(BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA A. MALI, ADVOCATE)

AND:
1. SRI. ANIL RAMACHANDRA MAGADUM
AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MOLE, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI.
NOW R/O. GURUVAR PET MIRAJ,
TQ. MIRAJ, DIST. SANGLI-416 416.




2. SRI. GAJANANA RAMACHANDRA MAGADUM
AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MOLE, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI.
NOW R/O. GURUVAR PET MIRAJ,
TQ. MIRAJ, DIST. SANGLI-416 416.

3. SRI. SIDARAY UMMANNA THARATHARE
AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MOLE, TQ. ATHANI,
DIST. BELAGAVI 590001.


Digitally signed
by SAROJA
HANGARAKI
Location: high
court of
karnataka,
dharwad bench

4. SMT. SUVARNA W/O NINGAPPA BADAKE
AGE.60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MOLE, TQ. ATHANI,
DIST. BELAGAVI 590001.
5. SRI. TULAJAPPA NINGAPPA BADAKE
AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MOLE, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17614
WP No. 106614 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020138652026


6. SRI. GIRIMALLA NINGAPPA BADAKE
AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MOLE, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.

7. SMT. LAXMIBAI W/O GIRIMALLA BADAKE
AGE. 98 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. MOLE, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.

8. SRI. NIJALINGA MACHENDRA SAMBHOJI
AGE 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MOLE, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.

9. SMT. MADHURA W/O SHIVAPPA BADAKE
AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. MOLE, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.V. GUNJAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. AKSHAY KATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. ANAND ASHTEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R7 AND R9)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
IN O.S. NO.144/2011 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED ADDL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ATHANI AND QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 14-
7-2026 MADE ON I.A. NO. 28 FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/ORDER 1
RULE 10(6) OF CPC IN O.S. NO. 144/2011 PASSED BY THE ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ATHANI PRODUCED AT ANNEX- F
AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE I.A. NO. 28 IN O.S. NO. 144/2011
ON THE FILE OF LEARNED ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
ATHANI AS PRAYED FOR THEREIN IN THE INTEREST OF THE JUSTICE
AND EQUITY AND ETC.

THIS WP COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS
MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17614
WP No. 106614 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020138652026


ORAL ORDER


1. Petitioner, who is arrayed as defendant No.4 in a suit in
O.S.No.144/2011 is before this Court being aggrieved by
the order dated 14.07.2026, in terms of which an
application filed by the petitioner herein under Order I Rule
10(6) of CPC seeking to transpose himself as plaintiff No.3
has been rejected.

2. The above suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for the relief
of declaration and consequential relief of injunction.
Plaintiffs are the brothers of defendant No.4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
plaintiffs and defendant No.4 have no conflict of interest.
In fact, the suit is filed for the benefit of both plaintiffs and
defendant No.4 against the other defendants. He submits
that at the time of filing of the suit, defendant No.4 was
not in station, as such he was arrayed as defendant No.4
by the plaintiffs. Defendant No.4 indeed had filed written
statement apart from supporting the case of the plaintiffs,
had also sought for counterclaim.

4. That in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of Rajul Manoj Shah alias Rajeshwari

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17614
WP No. 106614 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020138652026


Rasiklal Sheth vs. Kiranbhai Shakrabhai Patel and
Another arising out of SLP No.5635/2023 , defendant
No.4/petitioner was advised to file an application under
Order I Rule 10(6) of CPC seeking his transposition as
plaintiff, as a matter of abundant caution. That the Trial
Court has rejected the said application as the same has
been filed belatedly. Therefore, he seeks for allowing the
petition.

5. Learned counsel, Sri P.V.Gunjal appearing for
plaintiffs/respondents No.1 and 2 herein submits that
there is no conflict of interest between defendant
No.4/petitioner herein and plaintiffs/respondents No.1 and
2 herein. He also refers to the averments made in
paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the plaint to submit that in fact
the relief is sought keeping in mind the interests of the
defendants as well. While plaintiffs/respondents No.1 and
2 have no objection for transposing of defendant
No.4/petitioner herein as plaintiff No.3.

6. There is no representation on behalf of other defendants.

7. Heard. Perused the records.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17614
WP No. 106614 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020138652026



8. At paragraph No.5 of the plaint, following is pleaded by the
plaintiffs:
“5) ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ F ªÉÄÃ¯É «ªÀj¹zÀ zÁªÁ D¹ÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ £ÀA 4
EvÀ£ÀÄ ªÉÆÃ¼É UÁæªÀÄzÀ j.¸À.£ÀA§gÀ 74/2§ PÉëÃvÀæ 10 JPÀgÀ 37 UÀÄAmÉ RgÁ§ 00 J
10 UÀÄAmÉ EzÀgÀ ¥ÉÊQ ¥À²ÑªÀÄ ¨sÁUÀzÀ PÉëÃvÀæ 2 JPÀgÀ 20 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÉÃ
UÁæªÀÄzÀ j.¸À.£ÀA§gÀ 76/1PÀ PÉëÃvÀæ 11 JPÀgÀ 00 UÀÄAmÉ ¥ÉÇl RgÁ§ 00 J 04 UÀÄAmÉ
EzÀgÀ ¥ÉÊQ ¥À²ÑªÀÄ ¨sÁUÀzÀ 2 JPÀgÀ 20 UÀÄAmÉ d«Ä£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀéAvÀ
zÀÄrªÉĬÄAzÀ £ÉÆÃAzÀ Rjâ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ, CzÀgÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¸ÀzÀgÀ
d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À ¥ÀævÀPÀë PÀ¨ÁÓ ªÀ»ÃªÁl G¥À¨sÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ §A¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀgÀ zÁªÁ
d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À°è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ £ÀA 4 EvÀ£À ªÀiÁ°Ì d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À°è ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ £ÀA 1
EvÀ£ÀzÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ ºÀPÀÄÌ ªÀ »vÀ¸À§zsÀ EgÀĪÀ¢®è. FUÀ ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
¥ÀæwªÁ¢ £ÀA 4 EvÀ£ÀÄ PÀÆqÁ vÀªÀÄä vÀªÀÄä PÉ®¸ÀzÀ ¤«ÄvÀå CªÀgÀÄ «ÄgÀdzÀ°è
ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÀzÀjAzÀ CªÀgÀ d«Ä£ÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ £ÀA 1 EvÀ£ÀÄ £ÉÆÃrPÉƼÀÄîwzÀÝ£ÀÄ
DzÀgÉ ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ £ÀA 4 EvÀ£ÀÄ vÀªÀÄä vÀªÀÄä d«ÄãÀÄUÀ½UÉ §AzÀÄ
ºÉÆÃV PÀÆqÁ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ §A¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. »ÃVgÀĪÁUÀ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ £ÀA 1 EvÀ£ÀÄ F ªÉÄïÉ
«ªÀj¹zÀ zÁªÁ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ £ÀA 4 EvÀ£À ªÀiÁ°Ì d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
vÀ£Àß M§â£À ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀ zÀÄgÀÄzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 1/3/2007 gÀAzÀÄ
ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ £ÀA 4 EvÀ£À SÉÆnÖ ¸À»UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁr SÉÆnÖ ªÀ¢ð
¤Ãr qÉÊj ªÀÄAdÆgÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÄÝ ¨ÉPÁAiÉÄݲÃgÀ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj qÉÊj ªÀÄÄAdÆgÀ
ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÁUÀ ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ £ÀA 4 EvÀ£ÀÄ «ÄgÀdzÀ°è SÁAiÀÄA vÀjÃR
EgÀĪÀzÀjAzÀ CªÀjUÉ CªÀgÀ ¥Á°£À d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÉÃRgÀÄQ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä DUÀĪÀ¢®è
CAvÁ ºÉý SÉÆnÖ jÃw¬ÄAzÀ §gɬĹ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢
£ÀA 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3 EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ±Á«Äî ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ vÀ£Àß ºÉ¸ÀgÀ£ÀÄß F ªÉÄÃ¯É «ªÀj¹zÀ
zÁªÁ D¹ÛUÀ½UÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ £ÀA 4 EvÀ£À d«ÄãÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 18/4/2007
gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ ªÉÆÃ¼É UÁæªÀÄzÀ JA. Dgï. £ÀA 481/2006-07 gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ zÁR®
ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛ£É ¸ÀzÀgÀ JA. Dgï. £ÀA 481/2006-07 ªÁ¢AiÀÄjUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢

£ÀA 4 EvÀ£À ªÉÄÃ¯É AiÀiÁªÀzÉà jÃw¬ÄAzÀ §AzsÀ£À PÁgÀPÀ EgÀĪÀ¢®è.”


9. Thus, it is clear that the above suit is filed by the
plaintiffs/respondents No.1 and 2 herein for themselves
and on behalf of defendant No.4/petitioner herein. Though
defendant No.4/petitioner herein has filed written
statement seeking counter claim and an issue in this
regard has also been framed, application under Order I
Rule 10(6) is stated to have been filed as a matter of

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17614
WP No. 106614 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020138652026


abundant caution. The outcome of the suit would in the
circumstances of the pleading at paragraph No.5 would
enure to the benefit of defendant No.4/petitioner herein as
well.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
plaintiffs/respondents No.1 and 2 submits that to avoid
any future dispute or litigation between the defendant
No.4 and the plaintiffs, it would be advisable that
defendant No.4/petitioner herein be formally transposed as
plaintiff No.3.

11. In the light of the averments made at paragraph No.5 of
the plaint as above, this Court deems it appropriate to
allow the petition.

12. Impugned order dated 14.07.2026 is quashed. Application
filed under Order I Rule 10(6) of CPC is allowed.

13. Defendant No.4/petitioner herein is permitted to be
transposed as plaintiff No.3.

14. It is made clear that defendant No.4/petitioner herein shall
inasmuch
neither plead nor lead any separate evidence as
the pleading and the evidence by plaintiffs/respondents

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17614
WP No. 106614 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020138652026


No.1 and 2 is stated to be made far and on behalf of
defendant No.4/petitioner herein.


Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE


SH
CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 39