- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8971 WP No. 5336 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5336 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MR. BALAKRISHNA SUVARNA S/O MR. SHESAPPA AMIN AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT GANADABETTU,BAJAL POST MANGALORE TALUK 575027 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA SHENOY M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MANGALORE CITY CORPORATION LALBAUG,MANGALORE 575003 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER MANGALORE. 2. MR. SATISH KUMAR S/O GOPAL AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT #3-30, BAJAL PALLAKERE BAJAL POST, MANGALORE 575027. 3. MR. VISHWANATHA S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT 3-29, SONALIKE JALLIGUDDE POST BAJAL, PALLAKERE MANGALORE 575027 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.T.HARISH BHANDARI., ADVOCATE FOR R1: SRI. G RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2 & R3) Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8971 WP No. 5336 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN O.S.NO. 1089/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, MANGALORE D.K. & SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED: 05.12.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, MANGALORE D.K, ON I.A.NO.IV IN O.S.NO. 1089/2024 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, challenging the order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mangaluru on I.A.No.4 filed by the applicants under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.1089/2024, whereby the trial Court allowed the application. 2. Brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are as under: a) That the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property, which he purchased from Mrs. Sarojini, a neighbor who is now deceased. On the suit schedule property, the plaintiff has constructed a small shed for the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8971 WP No. 5336 of 2025 purpose of preparing/manufacturing furniture and carrying out carpentry work. He has been conducting this business for more than 15 years. b) Subsequently, one Mr.Sathish K, son of the Late Mrs.Sarojini, lodged a complaint with the Mangaluru City Corporation, alleging that the plaintiff has been creating noise pollution, sound pollution, and violating various laws. In response, the Mangaluru City Corporation issued several notices to the plaintiff, to which the plaintiff submitted a detailed reply. c) Thereafter, the defendant, Mangaluru City Corporation, issued an order dated 18.09.2024, which was served to the plaintiff on the same day at 4:30 p.m., and illegally, without following the due procedure of law, locked the suit schedule premises. As a result, the plaintiff filed a suit for a permanent mandatory injunction, seeking for removal of the lock put on the suit schedule property. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8971 WP No. 5336 of 2025 d) During the pendency of the suit, respondents Nos.2 and 3-imleading applicants filed I.A.No.4 under Order I, Rule 10(2) of the CPC, seeking to be impleaded as parties to the suit. The application was allowed. Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-plaintiff has contended that the plaintiff has filed the suit against the Mangaluru City Corporation to remove the locks put on the suit schedule property/premises. The cause of action arose on 18.09.2024 at 04:30 p.m., when the defendant- Mangaluru City Corporation issued an order dated 18.09.2024 and put locks on the suit schedule premises. He further submitted that the Corporation, illegally and without following the due procedure of law, put a lock on the suit schedule premises based on the complaint lodged by the impleading applicants. The impleadnig applicants have filed the application seeking to be impleaded as parties to the suit. He further submitted that the cause of action pleaded in the suit and the contents of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8971 WP No. 5336 of 2025 complaint lodged by the impleading applicants are different. Therefore, there is no necessity for these parties to be considered as necessary or proper parties in the suit. He further submitted that even the suit can be decided in the absence of the impleading applicants, and their presence is not necessary to decide the questions involved in the suit. The relief sought in the plaint is for a mandatory injunction to direct the Corporation to remove the locks and to restrain the Corporation from interfering with the plaintiff's right to carry on his business in the suit schedule property. No relief has been sought against the present petitioners. Therefore, the application filed to implead them as parties to the suit is contrary to the provisions of Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay reported in Laws (SC) 1992-3-58, and also relied upon the judgments of this Court in W.P.Nos.36508-36509/2014 disposed of on 02.01.2015, and W.P.No.34751/2010 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8971 WP No. 5336 of 2025 disposed of on 09.11.2010. He further submitted that the grievance in the impleading application that due to the plaintiff carrying out business in the suit property, it is creating noise pollution, causing harm to the impleading applicants, is not a valid reason for impleading them. If that would be the case, the remedy available to the impleading applicants is to file a writ under Section 91 of CPC. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 has submitted that the Corporation has initiated the proceedings based on the complaint lodged by the impleading applicants. Since the impleading applicants are the adjacent owners of the property, and due to the plaintiff carrying on business in the suit property, it creates nuisance and noise pollution for the impleading applicants and their rights have been infringed, they are the necessary parties to the suit. He further submitted that there is a specific allegation made against the impleading applicants in the plaint. Therefore, they should - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8971 WP No. 5336 of 2025 be impleaded as parties to the suit to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the cases of N.Anantha Reddy vs. Anshu Kathuria, reported in LAWS(SC)-2013-12-5, and W.P.No.30573/2018, disposed of on 23.09.2019. Hence, he sought for the dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the writ papers. 6. It is not in dispute the plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent mandatory injunction against the Mangaluru City Corporation to remove the locks put on the suit schedule property/premises. The cause of action mentioned in the suit arose on 18.09.2024 at 04.30 that when the defendant put lock high-handedly in the suit schedule property on the basis of the complaint lodged by the impleading applicants. The same is not disputed by the plaintiff since the pleadings in the plaint at Paragraph No.7 discloses that the plaintiff himself has mentioned that one - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8971 WP No. 5336 of 2025 Satish S/o Late Sarojini, lodged the complaint before the Mangaluru City Corporation. 7. The main contention of the impleading applicants is that due to plaintiff carrying carpentry business in the suit premises, it creates noise pollution and it affects their rights. 8. The Apex Court in the case of ‘Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal’ (supra), has held that if the intervener has a cause of action against the plaintiff relating to the subject- matter of the existing action, the Court has the power to join the intervener so as to give effect to the primary object of the order which is to avoid multiplicity of actions and also in the very same judgment, the Apex Court has held that if the relief sought by the plaintiff directly affects the intervener in enjoyment of his legal rights, he is a necessary and proper party. Even the Apex Court in the case of ‘N.Anantha Reddy’ (supra) has held that if there is infringement of rights of the parties in respect of light and air due to construction by the plaintiff in the suit - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8971 WP No. 5336 of 2025 property, the objector can be impleaded as party in the suit and it will resolve to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings. 9. Even this Court in W.P.No.30573/2018 referring the judgment of the Apex Court in the case Savitri Devi vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur and Others, AIR 1999 SC 976, if there is pleading in the plaint against the interveners, they are necessary parties. 10. Considering these aspects of the matter, the trial Court has rightly allowed the application. There is no error or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. The petition is devoid of merits. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE HA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 9