- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20539 WP No. 2477 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2477 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. S MURALIKRISHNA S/O LATE R SHIVASHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.403, 17TH CROSS, BEML LAYOUT, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 079 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. MANJULA FOR SRI. J M RAJANNA SETTY.,ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SMT. LAKSHMI W/O LATE R SHIVASHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/A NO.8, 1ST MAIN ROAD, KRISHNAPPA BUILDING, KAREKALLU, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BENGALURU-560 079. 2. SMT. S. SHILPA W/O HARISH KUMAR, D/O LATE R SHIVASHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.403, 17TH CROSS, Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20539 WP No. 2477 of 2020 BEML LAYOUT, BASAVESHWARNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 079. 3. SMT. R MONICA D/O M P RAMESH AND LATE SMT NANDAKUMARI R, W/O M. YESHWANTH, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, SREE ARCADE APARTMENT, 2ND PHASE, 12TH MAIN, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 079. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAFRINA BEGEUM FOR SRI. R. KOTHWAL.,ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. ANIKETHANA K.M. FOR SRI. K. VARAPRASAD., ADVOCATE FOR R3; V/O DATED 16.06.2025 NOTICE R1 HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.01.2020 PASSED ON I.A.NO.13 OF THE ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH- 27) BENGALURU IN O.S.NO.5335/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND REJECT THE APPLICATION I.A.NO.13 FILED BY THE R-3 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20539 WP No. 2477 of 2020 ORAL ORDER Petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs: ''(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of certiorari or any other Writ/s, order/s, direction/s and quash the impugned order dated 04.01.2020 passed on I.A. No.13 of the Additional City Civil Judge (CCH-27), Bengaluru, in O.S.No.5335/2014 vide Annexure-'H' and Reject The application I.A.No.13 filed by the third Respondent. (b) To pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant, in the facts and circumstances of the case together with the cost of the proceedings, in the interest of justice and equity.'' 2. Heard. 3. Smt. Manjula, learned counsel appearing for Sri. J. M. Rajanna Setty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the defendant No.1 in O.S.No.5335/2014, the said suit came to filed by the respondent No.1 for partition and separate possession and in the said suit, respondent No.3 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') seeking for impleadment - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20539 WP No. 2477 of 2020 before the Trial Court without appreciating the fact that in the connected suit in O.S.No.7256/2016, he is already added as a party and contesting the suit. Thereafter, the very proposed defendant/respondent No. 1 herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.7716/2022 seeking partition and separate possession of the very same suit schedule property which is pending, without appreciating these aspects of the matter, the Trial Court proceeded to allow the said application. It is further submitted that O.S.No.5335/2014 is filed by legal heirs of Shivashankar, one of the sons of late Ramaiah and other daughters of late Ramaiah has filed a suit in O.S.No.7256/2016, wherein already respondent No.3 is contesting the suit and all the suits are clubbed. Hence, allowing the application for impleadment would not arise. Hence, she seeks to set- aside the impugned order by dismissing the application. 4. Ms. Safrina Begum, learned counsel appearing for Sri. R. Kothwal, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 supports the submission made by the learned counsel for - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20539 WP No. 2477 of 2020 the petitioner and submits that the judgment and decree passed in the aforesaid clubbed suits would definitely bind the respondent No.3. Hence it was not necessary to file an application in the present suit. Hence, she seeks to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, Sri. Anikethana K.M, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that respondent No.3 is the daughter of late Nandakumari and late Nandakumari is one of daughter of late Ramaiah. The respondent No.3 is entitled to seek partition of the property and the same would not be possible without making her a party in the aforesaid O.S.No.5335/2014. It is further submitted that in O.S.No.7256/2016 filed by other daughters of late Ramaiah, the application came to be filed by respondent No.3, which was allowed and said order has attained finality. In view of the same, he seeks to dismiss the present petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20539 WP No. 2477 of 2020 6. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. 7. In a suit filed by the respondent No.1, application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC came to be filed by the respondent No.3 seeking for impleadment. The averments made in the accompanying affidavit indicate that respondent No.3 is the daughter of late Smt. Nandakumari, who is the daughter of the late Ramaiah and she claims that suit schedule property is a joint family property and she is entitled for share in the said property. 8. It is not in dispute that suit in O.S.No.5335/2014 and O.S.No.7256/2016 are clubbed together and being tried. In O.S.No.7256/2016, the respondent No.3 is made as a party in the proceedings and has filed written statement. Though, she has filed a suit in O.S.No.7716/2022, it would not bar her from filing an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC to implead - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20539 WP No. 2477 of 2020 herself in the pending suits filed by other daughters of late Ramaiah and allowing such application would help the trial Court in deciding the controversy between the parties. 9. The trial Court appreciating the averments made in the affidavit, allowed the application. Mere allowing of an application for impleadment would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner and other parties to suit. Hence, the trial Court has rightly allowed the application. 10. I do not find any error in the aforesaid finding calling for interference in the present writ petition. Accordingly, same is rejected. Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20