- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48785 WP No. 32778 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 32778 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SHIVANANJAPPA UMESH S/O LATE SHIVANANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.298/2 ’SHIVAKRUPA’ 13TH CROSS VINAYAKANAGAR, VIMANAPURA BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE – 560 017. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. Y P VIJAYA VASANTHA KUMARI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI S BASAVARAJ S/O LATE G. SHIVANANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 2. SRI. SHIVANANJAPPA RAMESH. S/O LATE GANGADHARAPPA SHIVANANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING AT NO.298, 'SHIVAKRUPA' 13TH CROSS, HANUMAIAH STREET, VINAYAKANAGARA, ANNASANDRAPALYA EXTENSION, HAL POST, VIMANAPURA BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48785 WP No. 32778 of 2025 BANGALORE – 560 017. 3. STATE BANK OF INDIA JEEVAN BIMA NAGAR BRANCH REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER B-121, PWD SHOPPING COMPLEX BANGALORE – 560 075. 4. SYNDICATE BANK INDIRA NAGAR BRANCH NOW MERGED WITH CANARA BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER NO.663, 1ST MAIN, DEFENCE COLONY INDIRA NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 038. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22-08-2025 PASSED BY THE LXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE COURT, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (CCH-73) IN O.S.NO.25118/2022 ON-I.A.NO.2/2024 AND 1.A.NO.4/2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48785 WP No. 32778 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff. He filed a suit for partition and separate possession against the respondents/defendants. In the suit for partition, the petitioner/plaintiff filed two applications I.A.No.2/2024 and I.A.No.4/2024. These two applications were filed to implead Banks, namely, State Bank of India in I.A.No.2/2024 and Syndicate Bank (merged with Canara Bank) in I.A.No.4/2024. These two applications were filed under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure. On consideration of these applications, the trial Court dismissed both the applications by a detailed order dated 22.08.2025. It is this order that is in challenge before this Court by the petitioner/plaintiff. 3. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge is perverse, arbitrary, illegal and the same requires to be set aside. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48785 WP No. 32778 of 2025 3(i) It is contented by learned counsel that during the lifetime of the parents of the plaintiff, father of the plaintiff had opened a bank account in the joint names of himself, Rudramma / mother of the plaintiff and S.Basavaraj/defendant No.2. It is further contented that the mother of the plaintiff died on 15.09.2000. After the death of the mother, the father and elder brother i.e., defendant No.2 were operating the account jointly and after the death of the father i.e., the first defendant, the second defendant has been depriving the legitimate right of the share of the plaintiff in the bank account maintained by the father i.e., defendant No.1. 3(ii) It is further contented by learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff that the bank statements would be required from these two banks to identify and ascertain as to the amount that was lying in the joint account maintained by the first defendant and second defendant and in view of the death of first defendant i.e., the father, the second defendant has made attempts to withdraw and has in fact withdrawn several amounts from the bank, which he ought not to have done. Therefore, the plaintiff has thought it necessary to make these - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48785 WP No. 32778 of 2025 applications to implead both the banks as the banks would be proper and necessary parties, in view of contemplating subsequent claims against the banks for restrainment of the banks from disbursing the amount in favour of the defendant No.2/ brother. 3(iii) It is the contention of learned counsel that a total amount of Rs.4,75,600/- was lying in the SBI bank account and a sum of Rs.2,87,192.09 was lying in the Canara Bank, which were deposited by the father / defendant No.1. Therefore, the banks would be proper and necessary parties. Hence, the plaintiff filed the applications under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead the banks as parties to the proceedings. The trial Court did not agree with the contentions and submissions of learned counsel for the plaintiff and dismissed the applications for the reasons which are stated more specifically in paragraph No.11. 4. The sum and substance of the submissions of learned counsel for the plaintiff is that the banks would be proper and necessary parties as the amounts were deposited by the father as defendant No.1 along with defendant No.2 as - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48785 WP No. 32778 of 2025 joint account holders in the said two banks and in view of death of the father / defendant No.1, the defendant No.2 is illegally withdrawing the amount, which causes hardship and inconvenience to the plaintiff. Therefore, the banks would be proper and necessary parties. 5. On careful perusal of the impugned order and the submissions of learned counsel for the plaintiff, it is seen that the very purpose of impleading the banks as parties to these proceedings is not clearly specified except for oral submission by the learned counsel that the plaintiff intends to restrain the banks from disbursing the amount to defendant No.2 i.e., his own brother, who jointly held the accounts along with his father in the said two banks. The trial Court has rightly dismissed the applications as there is no specific plea made against the banks as to why the banks are proper and necessary parties. 6. While making an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, two necessary essential requirements are to be fulfilled for impleading the applicant as a party to the suit proceedings. One, the plaintiff would have to make out a case to show that the applicant to be impleaded is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48785 WP No. 32778 of 2025 a proper party and secondly, a necessary party. In the case on hand, there is nothing that is produced before the Court or stated orally to show as to why the banks are proper and necessary parties in the suit proceedings, except for stating that certain amounts are lying with the two banks and the defendant No.2 is trying to take out all the money, which amount also belongs to the defendant No.1 i.e., the deceased father of the plaintiff. 7. In the present case on hand, even if the banks are not impleaded as parties to these proceedings, an effective decree can be passed. Therefore, under the circumstances, the two banks sought to be impleaded in two applications, would not be proper and necessary parties, as without their presence, an effective decree can be passed. So also, no specific relief is claimed against the banks in the suit, nor anything is shown in the applications. Under the circumstances, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48785 WP No. 32778 of 2025 8. Plaintiffs would be at liberty to produce the Banks statements if already in their custody or secure the same in accordance to law. 9. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER The Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE Bss List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52