- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3508 WP No. 34814 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 34814 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: K SUBRAMANYA RAI S/O LATE SANJEEVA RAI AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS PROP RAI ESTATE, 13/10 NEW SAYYAJI RAO ROAD BAMBOO BAZAR, MYSURU-570021. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KRISHNAMOORTHY D.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K P PRASANNA KUMAR S/O LATE PUTTE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS NO 468/1, VENKATESHWARA NILAYA GIRIDARSHINI LAYOUT ALANAHALLI POST, MYSURU-570028. 2. SMT. JAYANTHI W/O CHIKKA SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 3. SRI. RAVINDRA KUMAR S. @ RAVIKUMAR S/O SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 4. SRI. SREEKANTHA S. @ SRIKANTH S/O SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 5. SMT. HEMALATHA @ HEMAVATHI D/O SHIVAPPA Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3508 WP No. 34814 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. 6. SMT. AMBIKA, D/O SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 7. SRI. CHARAN C., S/O CHIKKA SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS 8. SMT. MANIYAMMA W/O LATE ANKAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 9. SRI. JAYA KUMARA @ JAYANNA S/O ANKAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 10. SMT JAYAMMA W/O LATE C. SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 11. SRIKANTA D/O LATE C. SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 12. MAHESHA, S/O LATE C. SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 13. SMT. VASANTHA, W/O CHANDRASHEKAR D/O LATE C. SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT MALURU PATTANA KUDLUR CHANNAPATNA RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562160. 14. SRI. SHIVAPPA, S/O LATE SIDDAPPA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3508 WP No. 34814 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R2 TO R14 ARE R/AT., LINGAYITHRA STREET VARUNA HOBLI, VAJAMANGALA POST VAJAMANGALA, MYSURU 570028. 15. SRI. JITHENDRA KUMAR S/O LATE JAVERI LAL AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT., NO. 209, SANMARGA SIDDARTHA NAGAR, NAZARBAD MOHALLA, MYSURU-570001. 16. SRI. JAYESH KUMAR SHAH S/O A.G. SHAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS. 17. SRI. YOGESH A. SHAH S/O LATE AMRATLAL G. SHAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R16 AND 17 ARE R/AT. NO. 38/2 2ND CROSS, THEOBALD ROAD NAZARBAD MOHALLA, MYSURU-570001. 18. MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JLB ROAD, MYSURU-57001 REP BY COMMISSIONER. 19. MEMBER TOWN PLANNING AUTHORITY JLB ROAD, MYSURU-570001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.Y K NARYANA SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER IMPUGNED DATED 20.11.2024 IN O.S.NO.868/2022 ON I.A.NO.9 FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE PASSED BY THE LEARNED VI ADDITIONAL - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3508 WP No. 34814 of 2024 SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MYSURU PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner-proposed defendant No.19 challenging the order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the VI Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, on I.A.No.9 filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC in O.S.No.868/2022, whereby the Trial Court has allowed the said application. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the Sale Agreement. Thereafter, the plaintiff came to know that the property in dispute has been sold in favour of proposed defendant No.19. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed I.A.No.9 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC seeking to implead the proposed defendant Nos.19, 20 and 21 as parties to the suit. The Trial Court, by impugned - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3508 WP No. 34814 of 2024 order dated 20.11.2024, has allowed the said application. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed by petitioner-proposed defendant No.19. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner-proposed defendant No.19 has submitted that the plaintiff has filed the suit for relief of specific performance of Sale Agreement dated 10.11.2021 executed on 11.11.2021. The proposed defendant No.19 is not a party to the said Agreement. Therefore, he is not a necessary and proper party to the suit. The Trial Court has erred in allowing the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1-plaintiff submits that the proposed defendant No.19 has purchased the suit schedule property through a sale deed and he is a necessary and proper party to the suit. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly allowed the application filed by the plaintiff. In support of his case, he has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Robin - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3508 WP No. 34814 of 2024 Ramjibhai Patel –v- Anandibai Rama alias Rajaram Pawar and Ors. reported in AIR 2016 SC (Supp) 733. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the writ papers. 6. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff has filed the suit for relief of specific performance of Sale Agreement dated 10.11.2021 executed on 11.11.2021. It is also not in dispute that the proposed defendant No.19 has claimed that he has purchased the very same suit property through a registered sale deed. 7. The Apex Court, in similar circumstances, in the case of Robin Ramjibhai Patel –v- Anandibai Rama alias Rajaram Pawar and Ors. reported in AIR 2016 SC (Supp) 733, in paragraph-10 has held as follows: “10. In the aforesaid context, this Court also considered the provisions of Order I Rule 10 CPC and in paragraph 7 it expressed its view that the relevant provisions show that the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3508 WP No. 34814 of 2024 necessary parties in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale are not only parties to the contract or their legal representatives but also a person who had purchased the contracted property from the vendor. It was further elaborated that “in equity as well as in law, the contract constitutes rights and also regulates the liabilities of the parties. A purchaser is a necessary party as he would be affected if he had purchased with or without notice of the contract, but a person who claims adversely to the claim of a vendor is, however, not a necessary party. From the above, it is now clear that two tests are to be satisfied for determining the question who is a necessary party.” 8. In that view of the matter, this court is of the opinion that the proposed defendant No.19 is a necessary and proper party to the suit for effective determination of the dispute. The Trial Court has rightly exercised the discretion to allow the application by invoking the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC and the same cannot be found fault with. No good grounds are made out to exercise the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3508 WP No. 34814 of 2024 supervisory jurisdiction vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE DM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15