- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21664 W.P. No.30852/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.30852 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SRI. RAMARAO MAHARAJ AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS S/O PARASHURAM BABA R/O SAMADHI STHANA OF SRI SEVABHAYA POHARA DEVI, MANORA TALUK VASIM DISTRICT-444 505 MAHARASHTRA STATE. 2. BALAKRISHNA MAHARAJ AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS S/O RAMNAIK @ RAMUSAD R/O SRI. SRI. SEVABHAYA JANMASTHANA SURAGONDANAKOPPA, CHINNIKATTE VILL HONNALI TALUK-577 217 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. UMESH MOOLIMANI, ADV., FOR SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADV., FOR PETITIONER NO.2 V/O/DTD:17.02.2025, STEPS TO BRING LR'S OF PETITIONER 1 DISPENSED WITH) AND: 1. SRI. K. ROOPLANAIK S/O KHEERYANAIKA AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS R/O RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560 010. 2. SRI. GOVINDANAIKA S/O THUKKYANAIKA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/O UJJINAPURA Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21664 W.P. No.30852/2019 HONNALI TALUK-577 217 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 3. DR. L. ESHWAANAIK S/O LACHANAIKA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/O UJJINAPURA HONNALI TALUK-577 217 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 4. DR. VASUDEVANAIK S/O HEERANAIK AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/O HOSANAGARA THANDA CHANNAGIRI TALUK-577 213 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 5. B.C. YENKANAIKA S/O PATHRNAIK AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/O BIDARAHALLI CHINNIKATTE POST HONNALI TALUK-577 217 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 6. SEVYA NAIK S/O BHEEMA NAIK AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS PRIEST, SANTHA SEVALAL MAHAMUTT SURAGONDANAKOPPA CHINNIKATTE VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK NOW NYAMTHI TALUK-A577 217 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VEERAYYA HIREMATH, ADV., FOR R1, R3 TO R6 V/O/DTD:17.02.2025 STEPS TO BRING LR'S OF R2 IS D/W) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 03.07.2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HONNALI ON IA NO.6 IN O.S.NO.272/2013 VIDE ANNX-G TO THE W.P. REJECT THE APPLICATION UNDER I.A.NO.6 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21664 W.P. No.30852/2019 MADE BY THE SIXTH DEFENDANT ON THE FILE OF LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HONNALI ON IA NO.6 IN O.S.NO.272/2013 & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: "a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and set aside the order dated 03.07.2019 passed by the court of learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Honnali on IA No.6 in O.S.No.272/2013 produced as per Annexure-G to the writ petition; b) Reject the application under I.A.No.6 made by the sixth defendant on the file of learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Honnali on IA No.6b in O.S.No.272/2013; c) Issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems it appropriate in the admitted facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice; d) Pass such other suitable orders as this Hon'ble court deems it appropriate in the attendant circumstances and facts of the case; e) Award the cost of this proceeding." - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21664 W.P. No.30852/2019 2. Sri.Umesh Moolimani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.S.V.Prakash, learned counsel for petitioner No.2 submits that the petitioners filed O.S.272/2013 seeking a relief of declaration that plaintiff No.2 is the religious head and Swamiji of the community at Suragondanakoppa Village and also sought further relief of injunction. In the said suit respondent No.6 filed an application for impleadment which came to be allowed by the trial Court without appreciating the fact that he is neither a necessary nor proper party to adjudicate the prayer sought in the plaint. It is submitted that respondent No.6 is claiming to be a poojary performing pooja of two temples and other defendants i.e. respondent Nos.1 to 5, who claim to be the management committee of Sri. Santha Sevalal Janmasthana Jeernodhara Samiti and respondent No.6 has to establish his right in an independent suit and cannot seek for impleadment in the suit filed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner, who is a dominus litus can choose the parties - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21664 W.P. No.30852/2019 and if he has chosen wrong parties, ultimately, he would suffer the consequences. In support of his contentions he places his reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudhamayee Pattnaik v. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo and Others1 and seeks to set aside the impugned order by allowing the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.Veerayya Hiremath, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 6 supports the order of the trial Court and submits that respondent No.6 filed an application for impleadment and produced several documents before the trial Court to substantiate that respondent No.6 is performing pooja at Sevalal and Mariyamma Devi temples from their inception and also receiving a monthly remuneration of Rs.1,000/- per month and the same has now been enhanced to Rs.6,000/-. It is submitted that if the relief sought in the plaint is granted, then the rights of respondent No.6 would be affected. Hence, respondent No.6 is a necessary and 1 AIR 2022 SC 4304 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21664 W.P. No.30852/2019 proper party to the suit filed by the petitioners and seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 6 and perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission advanced by the counsel representing the parties. 5. The petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.272/2013 and the same is pending on the file of the Civil Judge & JMFC, Honnali. The Prayer in the suit reads as under: "(a) For declaration, declaring that the 2nd plaintiff is the religious head and Swamiji of the community at Sooragondanakoppa village, (b) For a Permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, their agents, their servants or anybody claiming through them or on behalf of them from interfering in any manner with the daily poojas and routine work of the 2nd plaintiff in discharging his duties as the Swamiji of the community by him by - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21664 W.P. No.30852/2019 granting a perpetual injunction in the interest of justice. (c) For court costs, commissioners free and such other reliefs that this Hon'ble court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the ends of Justice." Pending the aforesaid suit, respondent No.6 filed an application under Order I Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of the CPC seeking for impleadment. The affidavit accompanying the application filed by respondent No.6 indicates that respondent No.6 claims that there exists two temples one is Sevalal and another is Mariyamma Devi temple at Suragondanakoppa, Honnali Taluk and the said temples were constructed in the year 1986 and from the beginning respondent No.6 has been performing pooja in the said temples and in the year 1993 a Committee by name Sri. Santha Sevalal Janmasthala Jeernodhara Samithi was constituted and they started paying remuneration of Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.6 and the same is now enhanced to Rs.6,000/-. In support of the said contentions he has produced certain documents to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21664 W.P. No.30852/2019 establish that he is performing the pooja in the aforesaid temples which has been taken note by the trial Court and held that respondent No.6 is a necessary party in view of the nature of relief sought in the plaint. The petitioners/plaintiffs have sought relief of permanent injunction against the defendants claiming that they are interfering with the daily poojas being performed by plaintiff No.2. Respondent No.6 herein is claiming that he is performing the pooja in the aforesaid temples and the said issue is required to be gone into the pending suit. Mere adding respondent No.6 in the suit would not cause any prejudice to the petitioners, on the other hand, it would aid the trial Court to decide the controversy completely. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the dominus litus to choose the parties to the proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudhamayee Pattnaik referred to supra has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case on - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21664 W.P. No.30852/2019 hand. As in the case on hand, respondent No.6 is specifically asserting that from 1986 he is performing pooja and drawing the remunerations. In view of the said assertions, I am of the considered view that the trial Court is fully justified in allowing the application filed by respondent No.6. I do not find any error in the impugned order of the trial Court calling for interference in the present petition. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) Writ petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the same is rejected. ii) In view of the rejection of the writ petition, IA.Nos.1/2024 and 2/2022 does not survive for consideration. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34