- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20113 WP No. 35135 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 35135 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. SHAKUNTHALA D P W/O. LATE SHEKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT D. NO. 3117, 9TH CROSS, MCC, B BLOCK, DAVANAGERE-577 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANATHKUMAR SHETTY K.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. R. K. MANJUNATH RAO S/O. SRI. RAMACHANDRA RAO, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO. 1077/1, 5TH CROSS, K.B. EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE-577 001. 2. SRI. S. R. GURUMURTHY S/O. A. SHELLI KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO. 791/1, 11TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, VINOBHANAGARA, DAVANAGERE CITY-577 002. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20113 WP No. 35135 of 2019 3. SRI. MALLESHAPPA S/O. LATE SIDDAVEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO. 1669/74, 4TH CROSS, "A" BLOCK, S.S. LAYOUT, DAVANAGERE-577 001. …RESPONDENTS (R1 TO R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY INTERFERING THE ORDER DATED 13.06.2019 PASSED ON I.A.NO.16/18 IN O.S.NO.125/2016 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, DAVANAGERE, VIDE ANNX-A 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 VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER Petitioner is before this Court seeking following reliefs: ''a) Issue a writ of certiorari by interfering the order dated: 13.06.2019 passed on I.A.No.16/18 in O.S.No.125/2016 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Davanagere, vide ANNEXURE-A; (b) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper relief's as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of this case.'' 2. Heard. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20113 WP No. 35135 of 2019 3. Sri. Sanathakumar Shetty K, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that O.S.No.125/2016 is filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 seeking prayer of declaration and mandatory injunction against the respondent No.3. In the said suit, the petitioner has filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') seeking for impleadment on the ground that the defendant in the said suit has categorically taken the defence that he was put in a possession of the scheduled property by one Sri. Shekaraiah, who is none other than the husband of the applicant and the prayer is sought against their property and that she is necessary party to the said suit. It is further submitted that the trial Court has not considered the aspect that, if the petitioner is impleaded in the suit, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and it would also avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order by permitting the petitioner to implead her as proposed defendant in the said suit. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20113 WP No. 35135 of 2019 4. Notice issued to the respondents is served, they have remained absent and hence placed ex-parte. 5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and meticulously perused the material available on record. 6. Pleadings and the material available on record would indicate that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed the suit in O.S.No.125/2016 against the respondent No.3 seeking the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction with regard to the suit schedule property that is vacant site bearing No.75, door No.1669/75, measuring 20 feet in width and 60 feet in length with the boundaries. 7. There is no dispute that the defendant in the aforesaid suit has taken a defence at paragraph No.23 of the written statement that the defendant has been permitted to remain in the suit schedule property by one Sri. Shekaraiah and his family members and also to do a watchman job and to remain in occupation of the said property till he wishes. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20113 WP No. 35135 of 2019 8. The petitioner had filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC seeking to implead her as the proposed defendant No.2 claiming that the said suit schedule property is the property belonging to the proposed defendant No.2 and that the said property has been acquired by way of a registered gift deed. The Trial Court at paragraph No.13 of the impugned judgment, clearly recorded the finding that the suit schedule property is a vacant property, bearing site No.75, door No.1669/75. However, the property claimed by the petitioner is a different property, that is site No.73, door No.1669/73 and site No.74, door No.1669/74 as per the gifted deed and has proceeded to reject the application. 9. I do not find any error in the findings recorded by the Trial Court in dismissing the application. It is clear from the material on record that the suit schedule property in the aforesaid suit in O.S.No.125/2016 is distinct from the property claimed by the petitioner under the registered gift deed dated 14.09.2011. Hence, the Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not necessary party to the said proceedings. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20113 WP No. 35135 of 2019 10. I do not find any error in the aforesaid finding calling for interference in the present writ petition. Accordingly, same is rejected. Petition is dismissed. SD/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34