- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1905 WP No. 100581 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.100581 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. MOHMADGOUS HUSSAINSAB JAMALI, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 2. MIYYASAB HUSSAINSAB JAMALI, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 3. SHALUSAB HUSSAINSAB JAMALI AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, ALL ARE R/O. OF MASANAKATTI VILLAGE, TALUK: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581104. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MANE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RUDRAGOUDA BASAPPAGAOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 2. VEERUPAKSHAGOUDA BASAPPAGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 3. SMT. NINGAWWA W/O. IRANAGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, 4. SMT. IRAVVA W/O. MALLAPPA DODDANNAVAR AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, 5. PREMAVVA W/O. SHIVANAND POOJAR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 6. SMT. GANGAVVA W/O. SURESH POOJAR AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.01 15:30:55 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1905 WP No. 100581 of 2022 7. SMT. SULOCHANA W/O. SAHADEVAPPA ANDADI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 8. GIRIJAWWA D/O. BASAPPA CHOUDAL AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF MASANAKATTI VILLAGE, HANGAL TALUK, DIST: HAVERI-581104. 9. REVANAPPA S/O. BARAMAPPA MANEGAR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 10. SMT. MALLAWWA TIMMAPUR W/O. SHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 11. SMT. GANGAWA BANAKAR W/O. PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 12. SIDDAPPA S/O. SHIVAPPA TIMMAPUR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 13. SMT. RENUKA BANAKAR W/O. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 14. LALITA D/O. SHIVAPPA TIMMAPUR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 15. KALAVATI D/O. SHIVAPPA TIMMAPUR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 16. PUJAR MUTTESH S/O.SHEKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 17. SMT. LAXMAWA W/O. SHANKARAPPA NAREGAL, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 18. MALLANAGOUDA S/O. NEELKANTGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 19. CHANDRAGOUDA NEELKANTGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1905 WP No. 100581 of 2022 20. SHIVANAND S/O. VENKAT RAMAN REANKAR, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 21. BASAVARAJ S/O. HANMANTAPPA MANEGAR, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 22. VEERUPAXGOUDA S/O. BASAPPAGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUR 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 23. RUDRAGOUDA S/O. BASAPPAGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 24. NAGAPPA S/O. BEERAPPA TIMMAPUR, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICUTLURE, 25. SMT. HONNAWA W/O. KANNAPPA TIMMAPUR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 26. SMT. SULOCHANA @ SUSHILA, W/O. SADASHIVAPPA ANDADI @ ANGADI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 27. SMT.GANGAWA W/O. SURESH PUJAR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 28. SMT. PREMAWA W/O. SHIVANAND PUJAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, ALL ARE R/O. MASANKATTI, TALUK HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581104. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R1-R8 IS DEFERRED; NOTICE TO R9-R19 & R21-R28 IS DISPENSED WITH; NOTICE TO R20 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN O.S.NO.36/17 DATED 17-11-2021, PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HANGAL ON IA 3 FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) OF CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE APPLICATION AT IA 3 VIDE ANNEXURE-E, PERMITTING THE PETITIONER TO IMPLEAD THE PROPOSED DEFENDANTS 9 TO 28 IN THE SUIT OS NO.36/2017. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1905 WP No. 100581 of 2022 THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs; “A writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the impugned order in O.S.No.36/17 dated 17-11-2021, passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Hangal on IA 3 filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC vide Annexure-F and consequently, allow the application at IA 3 vide Annexure-E, permitting the petitioner to implead the proposed defendants 9 to 28 in the suit OS No.36/2017.” 2. The petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No.36/2017 seeking for declaration of title and possession in respect to land measuring 2 acres situated at R.S.No.23. In the said suit, a Commissioner having been appointed a report had been submitted stating that it is not defendants No.1 to 8, who had been arrayed as parties, who are in possession, but certain others. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1905 WP No. 100581 of 2022 3. It is in that background that the persons named in the Commissioners report were sought to be impleaded by the petitioner by filing application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code Of Civil Procedure. The trial Court has rejected the said application on the ground that no relief is sought for against the proposed defendants. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The suit having been filed for declaration, possession of land measuring 2 acres in Sy.No.23 is not in dispute. The Commissioner report indicated that the said land has been phodied and renumbered as Sy.No.23/1 to Sy.No.23/14 and is in possession of the proposed defendants. The original defendants No.1 to 8 have been placed ex-parte were not found to be in possession of any portion of the suit schedule property. 5. Such being the case, the suit schedule property being identified, even though the same bears another - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1905 WP No. 100581 of 2022 number after phodied. The property remains one and the same. 6. The submission of Sri Santosh B.Mane, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is apart from filing an application for impleading and separate application for amendment of the plaint has also been filed seeking for reliefs against the proposed defendant No.9 to 28. 7. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court could not have rejected the said application for impleading the persons who are in possession, the suit being one for declaration and possession. If at all, the petitioners were to succeed, it is defendants No.9 to 28, who would be required to handover the possession to the plaintiffs. In that view of the matter, I pass the following; ORDER i) Writ petition is allowed. ii) The order dated 17.11.2021 passed in O.S.No.36/2017 by learned Additional Senior Civil - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1905 WP No. 100581 of 2022 Judge and JMFC, Hangal on I.A.No.3 vide Annexure-F is set-aside. Consequently, the application in I.A.No.3 filed by the petitioners under order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC is allowed. iii) The persons named in the said application are brought on record as defendants No.9 to 28. iv) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners to carryout necessary amendment and file amended cause title before the trial Court. The impleaded defendants already having been served and on record are granted 60 days’ time to file their written statement. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the suit thereafter in accordance with law. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68