- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1315 WP No. 3268 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3268 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI M S SRNIVAS S/O DODDA MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, 2. SRI D SHIVARAMEGOWDA S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 3. G NARASIMHAPPA S/O LATE GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 4. NARAYANASWAMY S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 5. G N SRINIVASAGOWDA S/O R NARAYANAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 6. G V RAJENDRABABU S/O M VENKATARAM AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, 7. EKAMBALLI MUNIVENKATAPPA S/O LATE SONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1315 WP No. 3268 of 2019 8. SRI CHALAPATHI S/O LATE MUNEPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 9. K SRINIVAS S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 10. R SONNEGOWDA S/O S RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 11. B MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 12. SHIVANANDA N S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 13. V GOVINDAPPA S/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, 14. H SREERAMAPPA S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 15. M SOMASHEKARA S/O LATE MUNIVENKATEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 16. M SHIVASHANKAR S/O K MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1315 WP No. 3268 of 2019 17. G M GOPALAGOWDA S/O LATE PATEL MUNISWAMYGOWDA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 18. G M NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE PATEL MUNISWAMYGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 19. N SREERAMAMURTHY S/O NAREPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 20. G M KRISHNAMURTHY S/O G M MUNIVENKATEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 21. V SRINIVASAPPA S/O LATE S VENKATARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 22. V VENKATASWAMY S/O LATE S VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 23. M CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 24. V KRISHNASWAMY S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, 25. G K JAYARAMEGOWDA S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1315 WP No. 3268 of 2019 26. V PRAKASH S/O LATE VENKATARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 27. N MARKONDAPPA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 28. H THIRUMALAPPA S/O HONNURAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, PETITIONER NO. 1 TO 28 ARE R/AT ITHARASANAHALLI VILLAGE, HOLUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NARASIMHA MURTHY G. V.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI H VENKATESH S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 2. G RAMAKRISHANA S/O GOPALAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 3. SRI MANJUNATHA S/O GOVINDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT ITHARASANAHALLI VILLAGE, HOLUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-563 101. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1315 WP No. 3268 of 2019 4. 5. 6. 7. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001 THE TAHASILDAR KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR-563101 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH, KOLAR-563101 THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICE HITHARASANAHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYATHI KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M. LOKESH MURTHY., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. M. NARAYANA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R6 AND R7; R4 AND R5 ARE SERVED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTCILES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-SET ASIDE THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-G AND H DATED 11.12.2018 PASSED BY THE HONBLE 1ST ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KOLAR IN O.S.529/2014 APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC OR SEEKING AN ADD PROPOSED DEENDANT AS N.4 TO 7 IN THE ABOVE SUIT AND UNDER ORDER 06 RULE 17 OF CPC FOR SEEKING AN AMENDMENT AS PRAYED IN THE APPLICATION. THE SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY SITE ITHARASANAHALLI GRAMATANA LIMITS ITHARASANAHLLI VILLAGE HOLUR HOBLI KOLAR TALUK BEARING SITE NO.49, 50, 51 MEASURING EAST- WEST 90 FEET AND NORTH TO SOUTH 45 FEET BOUNDED ON EAST BY KALUVE WEST BY SITE NO.48 AND S VENKATESHAPPA NORTH BY SITE NO.23 24 VARADARAJAPPA AND MUNEPPA NAREPPA AND - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1315 WP No. 3268 of 2019 MUNEPPAS SITE SOUTH BY ROAD MUDUVADI- KOTHAMANGALA ROAD. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER This petition is by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.529/2014 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar ['the civil Court']. The civil Court, by the impugned order dated 11.12.2018, has rejected the second petitioner's applications viz., I.A. No. VI under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short, 'CPC'] and I.A. No. VII under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. 2. The petitioners have filed their suit in O.S.No.529/2014 for permanent injunction contending that the suit properties [Site Nos.49, 50 and 51 of Itharsanahalli Village, Holur Hobli, Kolar Taluk] are reserved for the purpose of construction of public utilities such as school, hospital and a bank - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1315 WP No. 3268 of 2019 but then the private respondents have encroached upon a portion of this property to construct their personal buildings. The private respondents have filed written statement asserting that their predecessor-in-interest [Smt. Rajamma] is granted site No.45 and she has died leaving behind her last Will and Testament and that the Beneficiary/Legatee under the Last Will and Testament has executed the sale deed. One of the petitioners has examined himself as PW.1, and when the suit is listed for cross examination of this witness, the present applications are filed. 3. The application under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC is to bring on record (i) the State Government, (ii) the Tahsildar, Kolar Taluk, (iii) the concerned Executive Officer and (iv) the Panchayat Development Officer, Ithrasanahalli Grampanchayath. The application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for amendment is to plead that the defendants cannot - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1315 WP No. 3268 of 2019 even assert site No.45 because such site is allotted to a third person [Sri. Thulasiramaiah] and therefore, there could not have been a grant in favour of Smt. Rajamma. The petitioners also propose to bring on record by way of this amendment the details of the proceedings initiated as against the grant of the site No.45 in favour of Smt. Rajamma. The civil Court has rejected the applications on similar grounds opining that the applications are belated and if allowed, there would be a change in the nature of the suit. 4. This Court must opine that the civil Court has not considered the nature of the dispute and the consequences that could be if indeed there is a successful challenge to the grant in favour of Smt. Rajamma on the ground that the property in site No.45 is allotted to a certain Sri. Thulasiramaiah and that this site even otherwise is distinct from all of the sites mentioned in the plaint schedule. This Court is of the considered view that to enable a - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:1315 WP No. 3268 of 2019 complete adjudication of the real dispute, the petitioners, who plead public cause and in what must be a representative suit [if so filed], must be permitted to amend the plaint to bring on record all circumstances with liberty to the defendants to file written statement and take all such contentions as would be necessary to refute the plaintiffs' case. Further, unless the proposed defendants are also impleaded, there cannot be adjudication of all questions and therefore they are necessary parties. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER a. The petition is allowed. b. The civil Court's order dated 11.12.2018 on I.A. No. VI under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC and I.A. No. VII under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC are quashed. c. The applications [I.A. No. VI or VII] for impleadment and amendment are allowed. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:1315 WP No. 3268 of 2019 d. The civil Court, consequent to this order, shall permit the petitioners to amend the plaint and issue summons to the defendants now impleaded. e. The other defendants will be at liberty to file written statement within sixty [60] days from the date of this order. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB