- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20918 WP No. 5812 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 5812 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI GOVIND PRASAD RAJGARHIA S/O LATE SURAJMAL RAJGARHIA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.J-24, BHARANI COMPLEX, MINISTER ROAD, SECUNDERABAD – 500 003. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MOHAN M.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.TRIPTI THAKUR W/O LATE SAURABH JHA, D/O LATE K.N.THAKUR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.B-114, GOPALAN ARISTOCRAT APARTMENTS, EAST OF NGEF, KALYAN NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 043 ALSO WORKING AT: ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR AT KOTAK WEALTH MANAGEMENT, Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20918 WP No. 5812 of 2025 CORPORATE OFFICE, KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD., NO.22, M.G.ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. KUMARI AARNAH JHA D/O LATE SAURABH JHA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS. 3. MASTER ISHAN SIO LATE SAURABH JHA AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS. RESPONDENT NO.2 & 3 ARE RESIDING AT NO.B-114 GOPALAN ARISTOCRAT APARTMENTS, EAST OF NGEF, KALYAN NAGAR, BENGALURU – 500 043. RESPONDENT NO.3 BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL MOTHER SMT.TRIPTI THAKUR. 4. MR. KAILASANTH PARAMESWARAN SO K.PARAMESWARAN. AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, AN UN CITIZEN, HOLDING US PASSPORT, BEARING NUMBER 660167642, VALID UP-TO 31 AUG 2030. OCI CARD BEARING NUMBER A656983, CURRENTLY RESIDING AT NO.21. PAUL AVENUE, KENDALL PARK, NEW JERSEY, NJ-08824, USA. DULY REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20918 WP No. 5812 of 2025 SMT.SOWMIYA RAJAGOPAL, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT 202, BLOCK D HOYSALA ACE 2 APARTMENTS, 20TH MAIN, 20TH CROSS, SAHAKARA NAGAR A BLOCK BENGALURU – 560 092. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ANIRUDH SURESH, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 24-01-2025 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE XV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-3), IN O.S.NO.1649/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE- H AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 24.01.2025, rejecting an application – I.A.No.4 filed under Order I Rule 10 r/w. Section 151 of the C.P.C., in O.S.No.1649/2024, seeking impleadment of the proposed defendant as defendant No.4. The petitioner is the plaintiff, respondent No.4, the proposed defendant. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20918 WP No. 5812 of 2025 2. Heard Sri M.S.Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anirudh Suresh, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: A suit is preferred by the petitioner in O.S.No.1649/2024, for recovery of money from the hands of respondent Nos.1 to 3, the defendants. The issue dates back to a marital dispute between one Saurabh Jha and Smt.Tripti Thakur. The marital dispute comes to an end before this Court in W.P.No.15793/2019, disposed on 18.08.2020, by drawing up certain terms of settlement. The relevant conditions of the said settlement qua the suit schedule property, is as follows: “111. Remaining sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty- Five Lakhs Only) by way of three Post Dated Cheques, all drawn on kotak Mahindra Bank, Sahakara Nagar Branch, Bengaluru, favoring the Petitioner and to be handed over to the Petitioner at the time of judgment. The Cheques are to be handed over to the Petitioner and drawn in the manner stated below: (i) A sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) through Cheque No.000176, dated 20-10-2020 (ii) A sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) through Cheque No.000177, dated 20-04-2021; and (iii) A sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) through Cheque No.000178, dated 20-04-2022. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20918 WP No. 5812 of 2025 (iv) The Respondent has assured that the said postdated cheques shall be realized when presented for payment on the said dates by the Petitioner. To ensure realization of the said three postdated cheques on the respective dates, the Petitioner shall have an implied charge over the immovable property, being a residential apartment building number H-203, situated on the second floor of the apartment building known as "Krishna Diamond Apartments", Central Library Road, Sahakara Nagar, Bengaluru-560092. more fully described in the Schedule to the present Compromise Petition and hereinafter referred to as "the Schedule Property". The said charge would come into force only in the event of dishonor of any of the cheques & the petitioner is entitled to liquidate the said property (Apartment bearing No.H-203, Krishna Diamond Apartments, Sahakar Nagar Bengaluru). In that event entire sale proceeds will remain with Petitioner and respondent will have no claim in it. It is further agreed and represented by the Respondent that he will not create any charge, mortgage or any lien over the schedule property and shall not deal with the Schedule Properly during the subsistence of the charge or in the eventuality of schedule property devolving upon the Petitioner in accordance with the present compromise. Xxxxxx Sd/- Sd/- (TRIPTI THAKUR) (SAURABH JHA) PETITIONER RESPONDENT” (Emphasis added) In terms of the afore-quoted settlement, residential apartment No.H-203 fell into the share of Trupti Thakur, based - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20918 WP No. 5812 of 2025 upon certain conditions. It is the case of the petitioner that the cheques that were indicated in the settlement were all dishonoured and therefore, in anyway, the property which had fallen to the share of Tripti Thakur, the wife, is deemed to have purchased the property, on the default on the part of the husband. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the purchase of the property is in the teeth of a legal notice caused upon Tripti Thakur that the property should not be sold as there is a claim by the petitioner of ₹18,00,00,000 against late Saurabh Jha and the suit scheduled property is also the subject matter of the claim of the petitioner for the purpose of recovery of money. On these grounds, the petitioner files the application seeking permission to implead proposed defendant to come on record as defendant No.4, who has purchased the property from the hands of the defendants. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 seeks to defend the cause of action contending that he is a bona fide purchaser; he need not be a party to the suit as his vendor is already a defendant in the suit and defending the cause of recovering the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20918 WP No. 5812 of 2025 money. It is not in dispute that the subject matter of the suit scheduled property forms a part of the recovery claim of the petitioner and the petitioner causing a legal notice upon Tripti Thakur restraining not to alienate the property in the light of the said claim. Notwithstanding the same, the proposed respondent has purchased the property from the hands of respondent No.1. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and have perused the material on record. 7. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, 4th respondent becomes a necessary party to these proceedings to answer the claim of the petitioners in the said suit. The order rejecting the application under Order I Rule 10 r/w. Section 151 of the CPC, seeking to bring in the 4th respondent as party defendant, is erroneous as the claim of the petitioner and the purchase of the property by the 4th respondent are intertwined towards the resolution of the lis before the concerned Court. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to set aside the order passed by the concerned Court rejecting - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20918 WP No. 5812 of 2025 the application filed under Order I Rule 10 r/w. Section 151 of the CPC and allow the application, permitting impleadment of 4th respondent as defendant No.4, before the concerned Court. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER a. The writ petition is allowed. b. The application filed under Order I Rule 10 r/w. Section 151 of the CPC, stands allowed. c. The petitioner shall accordingly file an amended cause title before the concerned Court. d. All other contentions, except the one that is considered in the case at hand, shall remain open, to be agitated by the parties, before the concerned Court. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10