1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.8655 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT NARAYANAMMA D/O LATE MUNIPOOJAPPA W/O VENKATESHAPPA @ MOTAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT BANDIKODIGEHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, B K HALLI POST, DEVANAHALLI TQ BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-562149 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.VINOD C.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SRI J M MYLARASWAMY S/O LATE MUNIPOOJAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT JANGAMAKOTE VILLAGE JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI SIDDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562102 2 . SRI EARAPPA S/O LATE DODDAPOOJAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT SINGARAHALLI VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, YEGGANAHALLI POST, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110 2 3 . SRI LINGAPPA @ YARRAMALLAPPA S/O LATE DODDAPOOJAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS 4 . SRI NARAYANAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 5 . SRI MAHESH S/O LATE CHIKKALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 6 . SRI NARAYANASWAMY S/O CHIKKALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6 ARE RESIDENTS OF JANGAMAKOTE VILLAGE JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI SIDDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562102 7 . SMT GUNDAMMA @ GEETHAMMA D/O LATE CHIKKALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT KALLAHALLI AMBEDKAR COLONY BDA QUARTERS 1ST MAIN ROAD, SHIVASHETTY NAGAR POST BENGALURU-560042 8 . SMT PAPAKKA D/O LATE CHIKKALINGAPPA W/O VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT GIDDAPANAHALLI VILLAGE, NADAPANAHALLI POST KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-563101 9 . SMT YARRAKADIRAMMA D/O LATE DODDAPOOJAPPA W/O DODDA ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT JANGAMAKOTE VILLAGE 3 JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI SIDDALAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562102 …RESPONDENTS (V/O DATED 19.08.2021 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; V/O DATED 22.07.2021 NOTICE TO R2 - R9 IS DISPENSED WITH ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1908, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH ANNEXURE ‘A’, THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.03.2021 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT SHIDLAGHATTA ON IA NO.11 IN F.D.P NO.27/2012 AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 22.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV ORDER This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the order dated 18.03.2021 passed on I.A. No. 11 in FDP No. 27/2012 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Shidlaghatta and to issue writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C at Shidlaghatta, to set aside the amendment of impleading the Respondent No.1 as a party Respondent to the FDP No. 27/2012. 4 2. The Petitioner herein is the Petitioner before the Court below and Respondent No.1 herein is the Proposed Impleading Applicant No.1 before the Court below and Respondents No.2 to 9 herein are the Respondents No.1 to 8 respectively before the court below. 3. The Brief facts of the case are as follows: The Petitioner herein had instituted the suit in O.S.No. 263/2011, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Shidlaghatta, seeking the relief of partition and separate possession in respect of land bearing Sy.No.49/1, measuring to an extent of 3 acres 31 Guntas, situated at Devaganahalli village, Jangamakote Hobli, Sidlaghatta Taluk, i.e., Suit Schedule property, against the Defendants/Respondents 2 to 9 herein. Trial Court after hearing the matter, was pleased to decree the suit in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff, holding that the petitioner is entitled for 1/5th share over the suit schedule property by Judgment and Decree dated 21.04.2012. Pursuant to the decree dated 21.04.2012, petitioner initiated proceedings in F.D.P No. 27/2012 for allotment and for putting her in separate possession over her 1/5th share over the suit schedule property. 5 As matter stood thus, Respondent No.1 along with three others had filed Application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of CPC, dated 17.01.2014, i.e., I.A.No.7, to implead themselves as party Respondents in the FDP proceedings, on the guise that their predecessors-in-title were grantees of land in Sy.No. 37, which was late phoded as Sy. No. 49/1 to 49/8 and that they were in possession over the same and further it was alleged that the petitioner has got created the documents and had filed this suit. To the said I.A. No.7, the petitioner had filed detailed objections, contending that Sy.No.37 and Sy.No.49 are totally different and distinct that that the Impleading Applicants/Respondent No. 1 has nothing to do with the suit schedule property. The FDP court, after hearing the matter on I.A. No.7 along with other Applications in I.A. No 5 and 6, was pleased to dismiss the same vide its order dated 11.03.2020, wherein the FDP Court was pleased to consider that in so far as the I.A. No.7, filed by the Respondent No.1 and others were concerned, he had not furnished any documents in support of his Application and Contention that held that Applicant under I.A. No. 7, is not a necessary party. 6 Despite the dismissal of I.A.No.7, the respondent No.1 had filed I.A No.11 by taking the same contentions that were taken in I.A.No.7, to which, the Petitioner filed the detailed objections. The Court below, having rejected the I.A No.7, allowed I.A.No.11 and thereby ordering to implead the Applicant, i.e., Respondent No.1 as party Respondent to the FDP proceedings. Aggrieved by the same, Petitioner has approached this Court by way of this Writ Petition. 4. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.1 though served, remained absent. 5. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the FDP Court has erred in exercising the powers under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, when the Applicant-Respondent No.1 had not preferred any appeal against the order in I.A. No.7, Applicant filed I.A.No.11 which is barred by the principles of Res Judicata. It was further contended that the when the I.A.No.7 was dismissed, the FDP Court, by allowing the I.A.No.11, which is of the same nature as that of I.A.No.7, exceeded its jurisdiction. 6. It was also contended that once the Application is rejected, the next option for the aggrieved party is to challenge 7 the said orders but here in the case at hand, FDP Court, rather than rejecting the I.A.No.11, proceeded ahead and passed the impugned order despite Res Judicata Plea was taken and therefore, the impugned order is ultra vires. 7. The Relevant findings in the impugned order are as follows: “The Record seeks that the present application has been filed by the petitioner with respect to the properties shown in the petition and earlier the petition has been filed in O.S. No. 263/2011 and it was decreed on 21.04.2012 and declared that, the plaintiff is entitled for the 1/5th share in the property shown in the petition.” 8. On the other hand, the applicant had filed documents in support of this case, they are as follws: 1) record of rights, 2) Order of Tahasildar 3) Order of Assistant Commissioner, 4) Order of Deputy Commissioner, 5) Order of Deputy Tahasildar, 6) Hissa Tippani Copy, 7) Mutation extracts and RTC Extracts 8) 9 Patta books. 8 9. Over all considering the above said pleadings, documents and facts and circumstance of the case, and the applicant is specifically claiming the rights over the properties shown in the petition and further has produce some relevant documents as he rights over the properties. Therefore, in order to give an opportunity and also to know the real controversy between parties and also to decide the dispute between the parties the court is of the opinion that, the application needs to be considered. The reasons stated in the affidavit appear to be satisfactory, therefore with an intention to give an opportunity to appear before the court and participate in the proceedings, the application needs to be considered. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the material on record and on perusal of the impugned Order dated 18.03.2021 passed by the trial Court on I.A.No.11, it is observed that the trial Court failed to construe the objections raised by the petitioner, mainly that the respondent No.1 had filed I.A.No.7 for the very same relief of being impleaded as a party respondent to the proceeding, which came to be dismissed by the FDP Court vide Order dated 11.03.2023 and the same Order was not challenged by the respondent No.1 and again filed similar 9 application on 19.03.2020 under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC and the same was allowed by the trial Court without application of mind and overly exceeded its jurisdiction. 11. As could be seen from the earlier affidavit filed in I.A.No.VII by the respondent No.1 on 17.01.2014 and the above said I.A was dismissed on 11.03.2020 stating that the contention of the applicants and they have not pleaded anything about the present suit schedule property. Hence, the application is rejected. Further, observing the same, affidavit filed in I.A.No.XI filed on 19.03.2020 and the above said I.A was allowed on 18.03.2021, which are contrary to the law and considering the I.A.No.XI, the trial Court has not stated any reasons to substantiate their claim to allow the petition and not answered the objections raised by the petitioner herein properly. 12. The impugned Order 18.03.2021 passed on I.A. No. 11 in FDP No. 27/2012 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Shidlaghatta is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial Court for fresh consideration, in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the parties and the petitioner is permitted to raise his objections before the trial Court. 10 In view of the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (DR. K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE BNV Ct-ADP