- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14108 WP No. 30031 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 30031 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. SRINIVASAPPA, S/O LATE GOPALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT GAVIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK & DISTRICT - 562 103. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VISHWANATH R HEGDE., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. N. NARASIMHACHAR, S/O G.N.NARASIMHACHAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 2. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS., (a) SMT.DYAVAMMA, W/O LATE NARAYANA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, (b) SRI.CHANDU, S/O LATE NARAYANA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, (c) SRI.HARISH, S/O LATE NARAYANA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14108 WP No. 30031 of 2018 RESPONDENT NOS.2(a TO c) ALL R/AT K.K.PETE, 5TH WARD, KHADRAPPA STREET, SIDDLAGHATTA, CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT. 3. SRI. NARASIMHA MURTHY, S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 4. SRI. SRINIVASA, S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, ALL R/AT CHADALAPURA MAJARA, GAVIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK & DISTRICT - 562 103. 5. KUMARI VARALAKSHMI, D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS (a) SRI.MUNIRAJU, S/O NARAYANAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY LR. (b) SRI. ASHOK, S/O MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, NO.5(b) RESIDING AT VARADANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. M.V.THANUJA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R3, R5(b) SERVED; R5(a) - DEAD; NOTICE TO R4 HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 07.04.2021; R2(a), R2(b), R2(c) SERVED) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14108 WP No. 30031 of 2018 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.03.2018 ON I.A. FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC IN EX.NO.36 OF 2012 PASSED BY THE COURT OF II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHICKBALLAPAUR VIDE ANNEXURE - E AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed on the interlocutory application filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC) in Execution Case No.36 of 2012 pending on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkaballapura, by the impleading applicant herein has preferred this writ petition. 2. The case of the petitioner is that Respondent No.1 obtained a judgment and decree in his favour in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14108 WP No. 30031 of 2018 O.S.No.712 of 2007 for specific performance to sell the suit schedule property in his favour and consequently, filed Execution Case no.36 of 2012 to execute the same. The petitioner contending that he had earlier itself obtained another decree against the judgment debtors and presently, he is the owner of the suit schedule property field an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC. The Trial Court by observing the following has dismissed the said application. "8. After careful perusal of the IA and its objection it probabilises that applicant has not come with this application with clean hands, whatever stated in his IA it probabilises that it created concocted story with intention to drag on the proceedings and with an intention to knock off the property from the DHR. If at all the applicant aggrieved from any order, he has proper remedy. And further it clearly probabilises the counsel for the JDr and the counsel for the applicant are one and the same. Therefore, it clearly probabilises that the JDRs and the applicant collude with each other created alleged sale agreement and alleged compromise decree and come of this application with intention to drag on proceedings. Thus, I am of the opinion that the applicant is not necessary and proper party to the proceeding. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the negative". - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14108 WP No. 30031 of 2018 Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Admittedly, the case of the petitioner herein is that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and by filing Execution Case No.36 of 2012, his rights are intended to be defeated by the Respondent No.1 herein and the Trial Court erred in appreciating the same. 4. If any other person other than the judgment debtor is the owner of the property concerned, which is sought to be sold in favour of the decree holder in the execution petition, then the said third party has a right to make necessary application as an objector and cannot file an impleading application as it has been done in the instant case and the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the said application. 5. For the aforementioned reason, I do not see any error in the order passed by the Trial Court. For the said reason, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. It is needless to state, the dismissal of the present writ petition - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14108 WP No. 30031 of 2018 shall not come in the way of the petitioner filing necessary objector application, in accordance with law, if he is so entitled and the Trial Court is bound to consider the same, in accordance with law. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE DH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55