- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28850 WP No. 3776 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 3776 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. K.T.HUCHEGOWDA DEAD BY HIS LR'S, SMT. SARASWATHAMMA, W/O LATE HUCHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 2. SRI. K.H.VENKATARAMANAGOWDA S/O LATE HUCHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 3. SRI. K.H.SRIDHAR S/O LATE HUCHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 4. SRI. K.H.VINOD KUMAR S/O LATE HUCHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 5. SRI. K.H.SWETHA D/O LATE HUCHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, THE PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT KALKERE VILLAGE, CHIKKATHIRUPATHY POST, LAKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 160. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28850 WP No. 3776 of 2021 6. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA W/O K.T.VENKATEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, 7. SRI. NANDAN.V.GOWDA ALIAS NAGENDRA.K.V., S/O LATE K.T.VENKATEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 8. SMT. MANJULA.K.V. W/O SRI.MUNIRAJU.A.R. D/O LATE K.T.VENKATEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO. 2/56, ALUR VILLAGE, BALIGANAHALLI POST, HOSUR TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT - 635 103. 9. SMT. PADMAVATHAMMA.K.V. W/O GOPALAKRISHNA.V., AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT K.G.HALLI VILLAGE, TEKAL HOBLI AND POST, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 160. 10. SMT. KALAVATHI.K.V. W/O SRINIVAS.T., D/IO LATE K.T.VENKATEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 160. 11. SMT. CHANDRAPRABHA W/O RAGAVENDRA.K.V., D/O LATE K.T.VENKATEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, THE PETITIONERS NO.6, 7 & 11 R/AT KALKERE VILLAGE, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28850 WP No. 3776 of 2021 CHIKKATHIRUPATHY POST, LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 160. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. S.T.KEMPAMMA W/O SRI.VENKATESHAPPA, D/O LATE THIMMARAYAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT BELATHUR VILLAGE AND POST, HOSUR TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU-635 103. 2. SRI. S.T.MANJUNATH S/O LATE THIMMARAYAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT SAMPANGERE VILLAGE, LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 160. 3. SRI. S.T.THAMMEGOWDA S/O LATE THIMMARAYAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, 4. SRI. S.T.RAMEGOWDA S/O LATE THIMMARAYAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 5. SMT. M.K.MAHILATHA W/O LATE S.T.VENKATESHGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 6. KUMARI HARSHITHA, D/O LATE S.T.VENKATESH GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28850 WP No. 3776 of 2021 SMT. DODDAVENKATAMMA WAS DIED THE LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED RESPONDENTS NO.5, I.E. THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4, THE HUSBAND OF RESPONDENT NO.5, AND THE FATHER OF THE RESPONDENT NO.6, HEREIN ARE ON RECORD) ALL ARE R/AT SAMPANGERE VILLAGE, LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 160. 7. SMT. K.T.VENKATAMMA W/O LATE M.KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/AT MEDIAHALLI VILLAGE, DEVANAGUNDI POST, VIA KADUGODI HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE - 560 067. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANDRAIAH., ADVOCATE R3 TO 6 [ABSENT]; SRI. H.G.SWAMY., ADVOCATE R7 [ABSENT]; R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; NOTICE TO R1-DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED:25.11.2024) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Naveen Kumar., counsel for the petitioners has appeared in person. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28850 WP No. 3776 of 2021 There is no representation on behalf of respondents 3 to 7, either personally or through video conferencing. An emergent notice to the respondents was ordered on 27.07.2023. A perusal of the office note depicts that respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented. He has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person. 2. The order dated 25.02.2020 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur, Kolar on I.A.No.XI in O.S.No.35/2013 vide Annexure-F is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 4. The short point that requires consideration is whether the order of the Trial Court requires interference. 5. Suffice it to note that defendants 6(A to E), 7 to 12 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) R/w Section 151 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28850 WP No. 3776 of 2021 of CPC contending that defendant No.1 along with one of his daughters - impleading applicant No.2 executed GPA on 26.05.2017 in favor of the proposed impleading applicant No.1 and she in turn has sold the property under different sale deeds in favor of proposed impleading applicants 3 to 5. The Trail Court vide order dated 25.02.2020 dismissed the application. The controversy involved in the present writ is with regard to impleading of the applicants as necessary parties to the suit proceedings. Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC deals with striking or adding of parties. It is a settled law that plaintiff is dominus litis, has the choice to implead those persons as defendant against whom he vindicates his right. The underlined idea of Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC is whether the presence of an individual is/was necessary to finally determine the rights of parties or not. A person may be added as a party to the suit, provided it is shown that he has a direct interest in the subject matter and hence, his presence before the Court is necessary in order to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28850 WP No. 3776 of 2021 enable the Court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. In order to come on record as party to the proceedings, the petitioners herein have to show that the presence of proposed impleading defendants is necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. But the applicants have not substantiated the same. It is needless to say that in a suit relating to property, a person may be added as a party, provided he should have a direct interest as distinguished from commercial interest, in the subject matter of the litigation. But in the instant case, the petitioners except stating that the impleading applicants have dealt with one of the suit schedule property, have not shown that they have a direct interest in the subject matter. Therefore, it cannot be said that they have a direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation so as to allow them to come on record. The question of addition of parties under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, is generally not one of initial jurisdiction of the Court, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28850 WP No. 3776 of 2021 but of a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case. 6. In my view, the Trial Court has exercised its power in right perspective. I see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court so as to exercise supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40