- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37103 WP No. 14553 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 14553 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. SUJATHA S/O. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT- MULLUR VILLAGE, CARMELARAM POST, BANGALORE EAST TALUK. BANGALORE - 560 035. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR V.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S INDSING DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 208, WESTMINISTER, NO. 13, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. M. KRISHNA. 2. M/S. TREND SQUARE INFRA LLP, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 1012, 10TH FLOOR, B BLOCK, BRIGADE SIGNATURE TOWERS, KATAMANALLUR GATE, BANGALORE-560049, REPRESENTED BY ITS Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37103 WP No. 14553 of 2025 AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY/DIRECTOR SMT. R. LAKSHMI PRASANNA, W/O SRI R. RAJASHEKAR REDDY. 3. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S.P S/O PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 4. SRI. MANJUNATHA. S.P S/O PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT M.G. ROAD, SARJAPURA, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562 135. 5. SRI. YELLAPPA, S/O LATE PULLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS, R/AT- MULLUR VILLAGE, CARMELARAM POST, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 035 6. SMT. YELLAMMA, W/O YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT- MULLUR VILLAGE, CARMELARAM POST, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 035. VENKATASWAMY, S/O YELLAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS L.R.S 7. SMT. MANGALA, W/O LATE VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT MULLUR VILLAGE, CARMELARAM POST. VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37103 WP No. 14553 of 2025 BANGALORE - 560 035. 8. SRI BABU SEBASTIAN, S/O K.T. SEBASTIAN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT-NO. 1028, NEAR BPL FACTORY, HOSUR ROAD, BOMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 068. 9. SRI. SURESH BABU, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, R/AT-NO. 1028. NEAR BPL FACTORY, HOSUR ROAD, BOMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 068 10. SRL SHIVARAJ V. PATIL. SO LATE V. B. PATIL, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT-KANDAKUR VILLAGE. KUSTAGI TALUK, RAICHUR DISTRICT - 585 321. 11. SRI VIVEK TALVAR @ VIVEK PRANANATH TALWAR, S/O MR. PRANANATH TALWAR, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, R/AT-NO. 17. B-11 PLAZZA RIDGE ROAD, MALABAR HILLS, MUMBAI, REP. BY HIS GPA HOLDER, MR. DILIP MEHRA, S/O MR BABURAM MEHRA, R/AT FLAT NO. S-03, GOLDEN ENCLAVE, AIRPORT ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 017. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37103 WP No. 14553 of 2025 12. SRI.P. MOHIT KUMAR. S/O RAVINDRANATH POOJARI, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, R/AT- NO. 26/1, 2ND CROSS, WATER TANK ROAD, GOREGUNTE PALYA, BANGALORE - 560 035. 13. SMT. NAYANA. HJ, W/O MR. JAYAPRAKASH. H.S. AGED ABOUT MAJOR, R/AT-NO. 6, 1ST CROSS, N.S. PALYA, ABBAYYAPPA LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 076. 14. SRI. JOHN JOSEPH. S/O. JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, 15. SMT. SHALI JOY. W/O JOHN JOSEPH AGED ABOUT MAJOR, 16. SRI. JOSE PANKAL, S/O JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, 17. SRI. SIJI JOSE, S/O JOSE PANKAL, RESPONDENT NO.14 TO 17 ARE R/AT-AMBEDKAR NAGAR, MULLUR COLONY, NEAR SNEHADAN HOSPITAL, VARTHUR HOBLI, CARMELARAM POST, BANGALORE - 560 035. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR R, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. S.G. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2) - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37103 WP No. 14553 of 2025 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE / QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.03.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE HONBLE VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 /APPLICANTS ON I.A.NO.25 IN O.S.NO. 106/2007, CONSEQUENTLY REJECT/ DISMISS THE I.A.NO.25 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2/ APPLICANTS BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayers: "a) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ or order setting aside / quashing the impugned order dated 15.03.2025 vide Annexure - A passed by the Hon'ble VII Additional Senior Civil Judge Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, allowing the application filed by the respondent No.1 and 2/ applicants on I.A.No.25 in O.S.No.106/2007, consequently reject/ dismiss the I.A.No.25 filed by the respondent No.1 and 2/ applicants before the Trial Court; b) Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37103 WP No. 14553 of 2025 case, by allowing the above petition, in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Heard Shri Shivakumar V., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri Anil Kumar R. learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Shri S.G. Hegde, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 3. The petitioner is defendant No.3. A suit comes to be instituted by the plaintiff in O.S.No.106/2007. It transpires that the respondents herein purchases the property during the subsistence of the suit and is wanting to implead themselves into the proceedings. The concerned court allows the application. The moment the application is allowed, the respondents files an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the CPC' for short) seeking rejection of the plaint. The evidence began to be let in on the rejection of the plaint and at that time, the petitioner approaches this court in the subject petition calling in question the order which permits the respondents to come on record i.e, under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37103 WP No. 14553 of 2025 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that they are a proper and necessary parties. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would however dispute the position contending that the respondents are neither proper nor necessary parties. 6. The concerned court allows the application by the following order: "19. Hence, from relying upon the principles of the above Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court of Karnataka, it is clear that seeking impleadment in a pending proceeding before a Court cannot be claimed as a matter of right, however, that general rule is subject to the provisions of Order I rule 10 of the Code. The plaintiffs have filed suit for partition. The proposed defendant has furnished conveyance deed and sale deed standing over item No.2 property i.e., Sy.No.70/1 dated 18-09-2024 and 25-09- 2024.20. Certainly, there is documents standing an suit item No.2. The presence of the proposed defendants No.15 and 16 will not cause any hardship to the plaintiff or other defendants. If the applicants are brought on record it helps the court to reach a fair conclusion and their presence is necessary, hence, they need to be arrayed as parties to avoid multiplicity. Moreover, mere adding will not dilute their duty in establishing their contention. Hence, with these observations I proceed to pass the following. ORDER IA No.25 filed under order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC is allowed. For amendment and amended plaint by 15-04- 2025." - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37103 WP No. 14553 of 2025 The concerned court has allowed the application by rendering cogent reasons which would neither perversity nor error apparent. 7. In that light, there is no warrant of interference with the order passed by the concerned court bringing in the purchaser of the property. In that light, the petition stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21 CT: BHK