- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1380 WP No. 202922 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.202922 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: HOSAGERAPPA S/O EARPPA AGE. 74 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O SUKALPETH SINDHANOOR, DIST RAICHUR …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHANKRAPPA S/O HANAMANTHAPPA AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O SUKALPET SINDHANOOR, TQ SINDHANOOR, DIST. RAICHUR-584101. 2. RAMANNA S/O LATE HIRE DURGAPPA AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O SUKALPET SINDHANOOR, TQ SINDHANOOR, DIST. RAICHUR-584101. 3. HIRELINGAPPA S/O LATE SANNA DURGAPPA AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O SUKALPET SINDHANOOR, TQ SINDHANOOR, DIST. RAICHUR-584101. 4. M.A MAROOF S/O M.A RAHEEM AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, AND AGRICULTURE, Digitally signed by NIJAMUDDIN JAMKHANDI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1380 WP No. 202922 of 2022 R/O SINDHANOOR, TQ SINDHANOOR, DIST. RAICHUR-584101. 5. AKBAR ALI S/O MUSTAFFASAB AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE, R/O SINDHANOOR, TQ SINDHANOOR, DIST. RAICHUR-584101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. K. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4; V/O DATED 08.08.2023 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 TO R3 ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.08.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SINDHANUR IN O.S.NO.102/2012, VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ALLOW THE IA NO.8 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The plaintiff in O.S No.102/2012 on the file of learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Sindhanur, is before this Court challenging the correctness of an order dated 19.08.2022, by which an application filed by the plaintiff under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC was rejected. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1380 WP No. 202922 of 2022 2.(i). The suit in O.S No.102/2012 was filed for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant Nos.1 to 3 from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in the suit schedule property. The suit property was land bearing Sy No.758/1 of Sindhanur Taluk, measuring 1 acre. The plaintiff claimed that, his father had purchased the suit property in terms of a sale deed which was registered as document No.801/74-75. He claimed that the suit property had fallen to his exclusive share and from then on, he was in lawful possession and enjoyment. He alleged that the defendants were strangers to the suit property, but were interfering with his possession and hence, he sought for perpetual injunction. (ii). The defendant No.1 contested the suit and denied the assertions of the plaintiff. He claimed that the property purchased by the plaintiff’s father was given to the share of Smt. M. Lakshmi W/o Govindappa in terms of a registered partition dated 14.06.2007 and that the plaintiff was not granted any property in Sy No.758 of Sindhanur. It was contended that, though the plaintiff’s father purchased 1 acre of land in survey No.758, the boundaries of the entire 4 acres was shown in the sale deed. Therefore, he contended that the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1380 WP No. 202922 of 2022 plaintiff was not in possession of the entire property mentioned in the schedule to the suit. He further contended that, his ancestors executed a sale deed nominally in favour of the plaintiff’s father to secure a loan. The plaintiff’s father had agreed to re-convey the property to the person to whom the property would fall at the partition. Consequently, he executed an unregistered sale deed in the name of the defendant No.1 – father. However, the said deed was lost in the year 2009 in a flood. The defendant No.1 claimed that when he came to know of the mutation that the plaintiff had got in his name, the plaintiff had filed the instant suit. 3. An application was filed by the plaintiff in the suit for amendment of the plaint (I.A No.2) to incorporate an additional relief to declare a sale deed executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.4 as null and void. The plaintiff also filed an application to implead the defendant Nos.4 and 5 on the ground that the defendant No.5 claiming to be the power of attorney of defendant No.1 had executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.4. Later, the plaintiff filed I.A No.9 to withdraw I.A No.2 with liberty to file a fresh interlocutory application. All these applications were - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1380 WP No. 202922 of 2022 contested by the defendant Nos.1, 4 and 5. The Trial Court, in terms of the impugned order, allowed I.A No.9 filed by the plaintiff and dismissed I.A No.2 as not pressed. However the application filed by the plaintiff (I.A No.8) to implead the proposed defendant was rejected in terms of the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the same the plaintiff is before this court. 4. The learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that the defendant No.5 being the power of attorney of the defendant No.1, had conveyed the suit property to the defendant No.4 during the pendency of the suit and therefore, the proposed defendants had to be arrayed as parties in the suit. He contends that the cause of action continued against the defendant Nos.4 and 5 and hence, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application on the ground that the cause of action against the defendant Nos.1 to 3 was different than the cause of action against the defendant No.4, warrants interference. 5. Learned counsel for defendant No.4 did not dispute the fact that he had purchased the suit property during the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1380 WP No. 202922 of 2022 pendency of the suit. He contended that the defendant No.4 did not disturb the possession of the plaintiff and therefore, there was no cause of action to implead the defendant No.4. He contends that, if the plaintiff had any cause of action against defendant No.4 independent of the cause of action against defendant Nos.1 to 3, the plaintiff was bound to file a fresh suit. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for defendant No.4. 7. The suit was filed for perpetual injunction against the defendant Nos.1 to 3. The defendant No.1 claimed that the father of the plaintiff had executed an unregistered sale deed in favour of his father conveying the suit property and that the said unregistered sale was lost in a flood. Therefore, the plaintiff was justified in filing a suit for perpetual injunction against the defendant Nos.1 to 3. The defendant No.1 purportedly sold the suit property through his power of attorney namely the defendant No.5 in favour of the defendant No.4 on 14.03.2013. Therefore, the proposed defendants have - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1380 WP No. 202922 of 2022 stepped into the shoes of the defendant No.1. Consequently, the cause of action for the suit for perpetual injunction which was initially against the defendant Nos.1 to 3 is now against the defendant Nos.4 and 5. The Trial Court must have applied Order XXII Rule 10 of CPC and must have taken into consideration the nature of defence of the defendant No.1 before holding that the application filed by the plaintiff was not justified, as he proposed to invoke a different cause of action. 8. The defendant No.5 was purportedly the power of attorney of the defendant No.1, who sold the suit property to the defendant No.4 in terms of the sale deed dated 14.03.2013. Consequently, there can be no cause of action against the defendant No.5, whose role has come to an end after execution of a sale deed in favour of the defendant No.4. In that view of the matter, the defendant No.4 must have been substituted in the place of the defendant No.1 or added as additional defendant by allowing the application filed by the plaintiff in part. Hence, the following order: i) The writ petition is allowed in part; - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1380 WP No. 202922 of 2022 ii) The impugned order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff (I.A No.8) set aside in part. iii) The application filed by the plaintiff under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC is allowed in part and the proposed defendant No.4 is ordered to be brought on record as defendant No.4 in the suit. iv) It is open for the plaintiff to give up defendant Nos.1 to 3 in view the defendant No.4 purchasing the suit property during the pendency of the suit and continuing the suit only against the defendant No.4. v) Since the suit is filed in the year 2012, the Trial Court is requested to consider the expeditious disposal of the suit as provided under Karnataka (Case Flow Management in Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2005. Sd/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE THM/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11/CT:SI