@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
K.L. Manjunath, J.@mdashThe petitioners are challenging the order dated 3.4.2012 rejecting their application--. I.A. No. 1 filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC in FDP No. 11/2010 on the file of Sr. Civil Judge, Mulbagal. Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed suit in O.S. No. 35/2002 against respondents 3 to 5 for partition and separate possession of their 1/4th share. The suit came to be decreed on 1.1.2009. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the respondents 3 to 5 herein, who were the defendants in the suit filed an appeal in R.A. No. 14/2009. In the appeal the parties compromised the matter. Pursuant to the compromise, judgment and decree of the trial Court was modified. Thereafter respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed FDP No. 11/2010 for dividing the properties by metes and bounds. During the pendency of the said case, the petitioners filed an application to come on record stating that they are all co-parceners and they are entitled to their share and that the suit is filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein without arraying them as parties. The application filed by the petitioners came to be resisted by the parties stating that they have no connection with the family and the petitioners are not co-parceners. The trial court has dismissed the application. Therefore the present petition is filed.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the application of the petitioners came to be dismissed only on the ground that the applicants did not produce documents to show their relationship with the respondents and he further submits that now he has produced voters identity card and RTC extract and therefore, the matter has to be remanded.
3. Based on an identity card i.e. voter I.D. and RTC extract, this court cannot hold that there is relationship between the petitioners and the respondents. Whether the petitioners herein are entitled for a share and as to whether they were necessary parties in the suit, is to be adjudicated in a separate suit. In the circumstances, I do not find it is necessary to interfere with the impugned order of the trial court. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. It is open to the petitioners to file a comprehensive civil suit for their redressal.
