- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6426 WP No. 144111 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 144111 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT.SHANTAVVA W/O. MAHADEV KAMBLE, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: MALALI, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587113. 2. SMT. VIMALAVVA W/O. MAHADEV NATEKAR, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: JANAVAD, TQ: ATHANI-591304, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. SMT. CHANDRAVVA W/O. DHASHRATH HADIMANI, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O: ZUNJARAVAD, TQ: ATHANI-591304, DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. SMT. SUJATA W/O. VENKAPPA NATEKAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O: JANAVAD, TQ: ATHANI-591304, DIST: BELAGAVI. 5. SMT. MINAKSHI W/O. SHEKHAR KAMBLE, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O: PATHRANAHALLI, TQ: ATHANI-591304, DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K.H. BAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. KADAPPA MUTTAPPA KAMBLE, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: JANAVAD, TQ: ATHANI-591304, DIST: BELAGAVI. Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.04.29 16:28:06 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6426 WP No. 144111 of 2020 2. SRI. SHIVANAND MUTTAPPA KAMBLE, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: JANAVAD, TQ:ATHANI-591304, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. SRI. BASAPPA MUREPPA KAMBLE, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: JANAVAD, TQ:ATHANI-591304, DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. SMT. YALLAVVA MAREPPA KAMBLE @ HOLER, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O: JANAVAD, TQ: ATHANI-591304, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRASAD R. SIDHANTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. M.L. VANTI, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE ORDERS ON I.A.NO.4 DATED 20.08.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED V ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC ATHANI IN O.S. NO.994/2016 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E, BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION AND A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE LEARNED V ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC ATHANI TO ALLOW THE I.A. NO. 4 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS NO. 1 TO 5. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6426 WP No. 144111 of 2020 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) This petition is by defendants 1 to 5 assailing the order of the Trial Court passed on I.A.No.4 filed under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead the proposed defendants 7 to 13. The said application is rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that the proposed defendants 7 to 13 are not necessary parties to the present suit. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the defendants and learned counsels appearing for the plaintiffs. 3. Respondents 1 to 3, who are the plaintiffs in the present suit, have instituted the same seeking a decree of declaration along with consequential relief of permanent injunction. The foundation of their claim rests upon a compromise decree passed in O.S. No. 504/2006. It is their specific contention that the suit schedule properties were allotted to them under the terms of the said compromise decree. They further allege that the present petitioners - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6426 WP No. 144111 of 2020 (defendants 1 to 5 in the suit) are unlawfully interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said properties, despite having no legal right, title, or interest over the same. On this basis, the plaintiffs seek to protect their possession and enforce the terms of the compromise by way of declaratory and injunctive relief. 4. In the said proceedings, defendants 1 to 5 have filed an interlocutory application seeking the impleadment of defendants 7 to 13 as additional parties to the suit. The basis of this application is that defendants 7 to 13 were also parties to the earlier suit in O.S. No. 504/2006, where the compromise decree was recorded. The applicant-defendants contend that certain ancestral properties were allegedly left out of the earlier compromise, and that some members of the joint family were not arrayed as parties in the prior suit. In essence, through the impleadment application, the defendants seek to indirectly challenge the compromise decree, which, according to the plaintiffs, is binding and has attained finality. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6426 WP No. 144111 of 2020 5. It is a well-settled principle of law that the plaintiff is the Dominus Litis in any civil litigation and, as such, has the discretion to choose the parties against whom relief is sought. The defendants cannot insist upon the impleadment of additional parties unless it is clearly established that such parties are necessary or proper for effective adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. In the instant case, the suit has been instituted by the plaintiffs solely to assert their title and right of possession over the suit schedule properties, which were allotted to them under a compromise decree passed in O.S. No. 504/2006. The said compromise was recorded before the Lok Adalat and remains unchallenged till date. The plaintiffs are not seeking any relief against defendants 7 to 13, nor are they asserting any claim over properties that may belong to or affect those proposed parties. As such, there is no justification for their impleadment in the present proceedings. 6. Upon perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that the learned Trial Judge has correctly appreciated the factual matrix and the legal position. It has been rightly - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6426 WP No. 144111 of 2020 observed that defendants 7 to 13 are neither necessary nor proper parties to the present suit. The scope of the present suit is confined to the properties specifically allotted to the plaintiffs under the compromise recorded in O.S. No. 504/2006, and no claim is being made with respect to properties beyond the scope of the said decree. Consequently, this Court finds no infirmity in the Trial Court’s conclusion that the presence of defendants 7 to 13 is not essential for the effective adjudication of the issues in the suit. Hence, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition, and the same stands dismissed accordingly. 7. The further contention raised by the defendants, particularly by defendant No.5, that a counterclaim has already been filed challenging the compromise recorded in O.S. No. 504/2006 and therefore defendants 7 to 13 ought to be impleaded, is also devoid of substance. It is trite law that a compromise recorded before the Lok Adalat carries the status of a decree and cannot be questioned in a collateral proceeding. The proper course to challenge such a compromise would be by invoking jurisdiction under Article - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6426 WP No. 144111 of 2020 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court. However, no such legal recourse has been adopted by the defendants thus far. In the absence of any lawful challenge to the compromise decree, the attempt to reopen settled issues by seeking impleadment of additional parties is impermissible. On this ground also, the impleadment application is liable to be rejected. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CLK Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 13