- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18454 WP No. 10938 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 10938 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: C. NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O CHIKKARANGAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LR'S 1. SRI.N. SREENIVASA S/O LATE C. NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 2. SRI. P.N. MOHAN S/O LATE C. NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, BOTH THE PETITIONERS NO.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT PRABHUVANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572216. SRIRANGAPPA @ RANGANATHAPPA, S/O LATE SEEBI NARASIMHAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY LR'S 3. SRI. RAVIKUMAR N.S. S/O LATE SRIRANGAPPA @ RANGANATHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NAGENAHALLI, KALLAMBELLA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 125. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18454 WP No. 10938 of 2024 S.R. NARASIMHAMURTHY, S/O LATE RANGAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY LR'S 4. SMT. PADMAMMA, W/O LATE S.R. NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, 5. SRI.YOGANARASIMHAMURTHY N, S/O LATE S.R. NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 6. SRI. S.N. NARASIMHARAJU, S/O LATE S.R. NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 7. SRI. RAVEENDRA S.N, S/O LATE S.R. NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 8. SRI. NAGARAJU S.N, S/O LATE S.R. NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, ALL THE PETITIONERS NO.4 TO 8 ARE R/AT SHAMBONAHALLI VILLAGE, KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 138. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NAGARAJA S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI SEEBI NARASIMHASWAMY TEMPLE SEEBI KSHETRA, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18454 WP No. 10938 of 2024 SY.NO.10 CHIKKASEEBI VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 107. REP. BY ITS HEREDITARY DHARMAKARTHA SRI. KARANIKA NALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, R/AT SY.NO.10, CHIKKASEEBI VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 107. 2. SRI. NARSIMHAIAH, S/O PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 3. SRI. NARASANNA, S/O NARASANNA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 4. SRI. H.N. GUNDURAO, S/O LATE NARASIMHA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, ALL THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE ARCHAKS OF SEEBI NARASIMHASWAMY TEMPLE, R/AT HALDODDERI VILLAGE, KALLAMBELLA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 125. 5. SRI. L. SRIHARSHA, S/O LATE A.N. LAKSHMINARASIMHA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT SEEBI AGRAHARA KALLAMBELLA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 125. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18454 WP No. 10938 of 2024 6. SRI. NARASIMHARAJU N.S, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O LATE SRIRANGAPPA @ RANGANATHAPPA, 7. SRI. UDAYA KUMAR N.S, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O LATE SRIRANGAPPA @ RANGANATHAPPA, 8. SRI. NAGARAJU N.S, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O LATE SRIRANGAPPA @ RANGANATHAPPA THE RESPONDENTS NO.6 TO 8 ARE R/AT NAGENAHALLI, KALLAMBELLA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 125. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DTD 15.02.2024 PASSED BY THE III ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT TUMAKURU ON IA NO.10 IN O.S.NO.663/2015 VIDE ANNXURE-E 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 petitioners-plaintiffs are before this court calling in question the order dated 15.02.2024 passed in O.S.No.663/2015 by which an application filed by the defendant No.5 under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is allowed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18454 WP No. 10938 of 2024 2. Heard Sri.Nagaraja, learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. Facts in brief germane are as follows: (a) A suit comes to be filed by the petitioners-the plaintiffs seeking a relief of declaration that they are entitled to perform pooja in the suit schedule temple as Archaks on rotation basis. A relief of permanent injunction is also sought restraining defendant No.1 in causing interference for performing pooja in the temple on rotation basis. The suit was pending adjudication before the concerned court. The defendant No.5 claiming to be an Archak for the last four or five years in the suit schedule temple files an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC seeking to come on record contending that he also has a right to perform pooja in the temple on rotation basis as an Archak as he has been doing it for the last five years. The concerned court allows the application after hearing the parties by the following order. "5. Now the following points that arises for my consideration:- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18454 WP No. 10938 of 2024 1) Whether the applicant has made out good grounds to allow the application filed U/o 1 R. 10(2) R/w Sec. 151 of C.P.C.? 2) What order ? 6. On the material available on record, this court answered the above points as under: Point No.1: In the Affirmative, Point No.2: As per final order for the following:- :REASONS: 9. Point No. 1:- This suit is for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction and for such other reliefs. Now the applicant has filed this application praying to implead him as defendant No. 5. The applicants have stated that, applicant was the qualified Archak performing Pooja in the suit schedule Temple from the past 5 years. Being conversant with the fact of the case applicant was competent to swear to this affidavit. Applicant further submits that, the plaintiffs have filed the above suit seeking the relief of declaring them as Archaks entitled to perform Pooja as Archaks on rotation basis of the suit schedule property, for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant No.1 and also a direction to the defendant No.1 that the plaintiffs are entitled to take charge from the defendant No.1 as and when the period of rotation starts to perform Pooja of the suit schedule Temple. Further submits that, the applicant further joined the services in the suit schedule temple in the year 2009 and was performing the Pooja as an Archak in the suit schedule Temple till October 2010. Applicant left the services from the suit schedule temple in order to acquire higher Vedic qualification in performed of the Pooja rituals. After applicant was completely educated and trained in the Vedic scripts for performance of pooja for almost 4 years applicant once again resumed the services with the suit schedule Temple from the year 2014 and have been serving as qualified Archak uninterruptedly till today. So one thing is clear from the submission made by the both parties that directly and indirectly they are necessary parties to the suit schedule - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18454 WP No. 10938 of 2024 properties. Further it is clear that they are the necessary parties for disposal of the suit. 10. The Order-1 R-10(2) CPC read as under:- "The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may be appears 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 plaintiff or defendant or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely who adjudicate upon and settle all the question involved in the suit be added." 11. As per above said provision the Court can implead any person to the suit at any stage of the proceedings, if the said persons are necessary to settle all the questions involved in the suit. Hence in order to avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings, it is necessary to permit the applicant to implead the proposed the defendant No.5. Therefore, the application is deserves to be allowed. Accordingly the above point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative. 12. Point No.2: In the result, for the foregoing reasons and findings on Point No.1, this court proceed to pass the following: : O R D E R: The I.A. No.X filed by the applicant U/o.1 R. 10 (2) R/W Sec. 151 of C.P.C is hereby allowed. The applicant is hereby permitted to implead him as defendant No.5. For amendment and amended plaint." - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18454 WP No. 10938 of 2024 4. Feeling aggrieved by the allowing of the application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC permitting the defendant No.5 to come on record, the plaintiffs are before this court. 5. A perusal at the application and the order so passed in the considered view of this court does not warrant any interference as the defendant No.5-impleading applicant has clearly bought out his right also to perform pooja as he has been doing it for the last five years. Mere entry of a party into a suit where he is undoubtedly connected will not lead to granting any relief. He would project his rights and his rights would be assessed at a later point in time. The order passed by the concerned court does not suffer from any perversity for this court to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Finding no merit, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3