- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12318 WP No. 4210 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4210 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT D A THEJESHWARI W/O. K.M. SRINIVASA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/A. 5/25, 10TH MAIN 13TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR 1ST BLOCK, NEAR ASHOKA PILLAR BENGALURU 560011. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.M S SHYAM SUNDAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. VANDANA P L., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT EKTA KUKREJA DIRECTOR OF ANUSHKA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. D/O. LATE. NANDA KUMAR BASHOMAL MENDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT. FLAT NO.21B, KINGFISHER TOWERS, KASTURBA ROAD CROSS BENGALURU-560001. 2. M/S. SRINIVASA TRUST, A TRUST REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN TRUST ACT, 1881 Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12318 WP No. 4210 of 2025 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 7/21 1ST CROSS, 9TH MAIN RMV EXTENSION BENGALURU 560-080 REP BY MANAGING TRUSTEE D.A. SRINIVAS. 3. SMT. KALPAJA DALAVOI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS TRUSTEE OF M/S. SRINIVASA TRUST R/A. NO.87, SAI KESHAV OPPOSITE SAI GARDENS SEEGEHALLI BENGALURU 560067 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.G L VISHWANATH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT.MANASA B RAO, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1: SRI, VIKRAM HULIGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. ROHAN HOSMAT, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED: 22.01.2025 PASSED IN O.S.NO. 2897/2024 BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-2 AT BENGALURU AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed by the impleading applicant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 22.01.2025 passed on IA No.3 in O.S.No.2897/2024, by the I Additional City Civil and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12318 WP No. 4210 of 2025 Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC was rejected. 2. The respondent No.1 herein, who is the plaintiff, filed a suit for bare injunction. After service of summons, defendants appeared through counsel and filed the written statement. At that stage, the petitioner filed an application – IA No.3 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC. The same came to be dismissed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following contentions: (i) Firstly, the suit schedule property originally belongs to the petitioner. The petitioner sold the property by a registered sale deed dated 13.03.2024 for a sale consideration of Rs.81 crores. The consideration was paid through cheque. Even after the execution of the sale deed, cheque amount was not realized, cheque was - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12318 WP No. 4210 of 2025 bounced. Since the cheque amount has not been satisfied, the title has not been transferred to the plaintiff through the sale deed dated 13.03.2024. Therefore, the impleading applicant, i.e., the petitioner is a necessary party in the suit filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff. (ii) Secondly, in the plaint, there is an averment against the petitioner/impleading applicant. It is specifically stated that the petitioner has sold the property after receiving a consideration amount, possession has been handed over to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, are contrary to the materials available on record. Therefore, the impleading applicant is a necessary party to defend the case in the suit filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff. Since the petitioner has an interest in the suit schedule property, she has to be impleaded as a party in the suit. The trial court, in the impugned order, has not given any proper reason for rejection of the application. The impugned order is passed without application of mind and is not a speaking order. In support of his contention he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12318 WP No. 4210 of 2025 Nos.5755-5756 of 2011 and the order of the Bombay High Court in W.P.No.10493/2022 disposed of on 11.10.2022. Hence, sought for allowing the petition. 4. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff raised the following contentions: (i) Firstly, the plaintiff purchased the property by a registered sale deed dated 13.03.2024 after paying the consideration amount. The impleading applicant has sold the property without bringing it to the notice of the plaintiff that there was a suit for specific performance filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3/defendant Nos.1 and 2 against the petitioner/impleading applicant and the same is pending consideration. Since defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are trying to interfere into the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property, he filed a bare injunction suit against defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiff has no grievance against the impleading applicant since she sold the property and the possession also handed over, from the date of the sale deed and the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12318 WP No. 4210 of 2025 plaintiff is in the possession of the property. Therefore, the impleading applicant is neither necessary nor the proper party to the suit. (ii) Secondly, the Apex Court in the case of MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED vs. REGENCY CONVENTION CENTRE AND HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS reported in (2010) 7 SCC 417 has held that, in a suit for injunction, plaintiff being dominus litis, may choose the persons against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief. Since the plaintiff has not sought for any relief from the impleading applicant, she is not a necessary party to the suit, the trial court has rightly rejected the application. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 raised the following contentions: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12318 WP No. 4210 of 2025 (i) Firstly, the suit schedule property originally belongs to the impleading applicant. She has executed an agreement of sale dated 13.03.2023 in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Since she has not performed her part of the contract, they filed a suit against the impleading applicant for specific performance of the contract in O.S.No.1453/2024 and also obtained an injunction not to alienate the suit schedule property. During the pendency of the injunction order, the impleading applicant sold the property in favour of the plaintiff by a registered sale deed dated 13.03.2024. Therefore, she is a necessary party to the suit. (ii) Secondly, even in the plaint, there is an allegation against the impleading applicant. Without impleading the applicant as a party, issues cannot be decided. Hence, he contended that the impleading applicant is a necessary and proper party. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12318 WP No. 4210 of 2025 7. It is not in dispute that plaintiff filed a suit for bare injunction against respondent Nos. 2 and 3/defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The specific case of the plaintiff is that he purchased the property from the impleading applicant by a registered sale deed dated 13.03.2024. The plaintiff has been put in possession by the impleading applicant. Even though in the plaint he has made an averment against the impleading applicant, his specific case is that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are trying to interfere into the suit schedule property and he has no grievance against the impleading applicant. Therefore, he filed an injunction suit against defendant Nos. 1 and 2. In a suit for injunction, the Apex Court in the case of MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED (supra) has held as follows: ” The general rule in regard to impleadment of parties is that the plaintiff in a suit, being dominus litis, may choose the persons against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12318 WP No. 4210 of 2025 Consequently, a person who is not a party has no right to be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff. But this general rule is subject to the provisions of Order I Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure (`Code' for short), which provides for impleadment of proper or necessary parties. The said sub-rule is extracted below: "10. (2) Court may strike out or add parties.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added." 14. The said provision makes it clear that a court may, at any stage of the proceedings (including suits for specific performance), either upon or even without any application, and on such terms as may appear to it to be just, direct that any of the following persons may be added as a party: (a) any person who ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant, but not added; or (b) any person whose presence before the court - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:12318 WP No. 4210 of 2025 may be necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle the question involved in the suit. In short, the court is given the discretion to add as a party, any person who is found to be a necessary party or proper party. 15. A `necessary party' is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the Court. If a `necessary party' is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A `proper party' is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in disputes in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the court has no jurisdiction to implead him, against the wishes of the plaintiff. The fact that a person is likely to secure a right/interest in a suit property, after the suit is decided against the plaintiff, will not make such person a necessary party or a proper party to the suit for specific performance.” - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:12318 WP No. 4210 of 2025 8. Since no relief is sought against the impleading applicant, she is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit. The judgment relied upon by the impleading applicant in Civil Appeal No.5755-5756 of 2021 is in respect of the suit for specific performance of the contract. Even in the judgment of the Bombay High Court relied upon by the petitioner in W.P.No.10493/2022, even though the suit is for injunction the facts of the case is that the trustees are not made as parties, only the police and revenue officers were made as parties. Therefore, the court has allowed the application. The said judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case. In this case, the specific contention of the plaintiff is that the defendants are interfering into the suit schedule property. He sought injunction against them. Therefore, the trial court has rightly rejected the application. There is no error or illegality in the order passed by the trial court. 9. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:12318 WP No. 4210 of 2025 10. It is made clear that this is a suit for injunction. Any decree passed in O.S.No.2892/2024 is applicable only to the parties thereto. In view of disposal of the petition, all pending applications stand disposed of. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 69