- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6536 WP No. 101728 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 101728 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: PRAKASH S/O BABANNA HUNDEKAR, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KADABI-591 129, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. … PETITIONER (BY SMT. SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PANCHANAGOUDA S/O BASANAGOUDA DYAMANAGOUDAR, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE BUSINESS, R/O: MUNAVALLI-591 126, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. SMT. MAHADEVI W/O BASAPPA NARI, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: JEEVAPUR-591 117, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. PRAKASH S/O BASAPPA NARI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: JEEVAPUR-591 117, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 TO R3-DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6536 WP No. 101728 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Smt.Shaila Bellikatti., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Shivaraj P.Mudhol., counsel for respondent No.1 have appeared in person. 2. The short facts are these: The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance. The petitioner filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC to come on record as proposed defendant No.3. He contended that the first defendant had executed a registered agreement for sale in his favor on 03.02.2016. It is also contended by him that he had filed a suit against the first defendant seeking the relief of specific performance in O.S.No.8/2022. Hence, he requested the Trial Court to permit him to come on record. The Trial Court vide order dated:03.03.2025 dismissed the application. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6536 WP No. 101728 of 2025 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 4. The short controversy is about the rejection of the impleading application. The power of the Court to add, or strike out parties to a suit is discretionary and is to be exercised in the light of all the facts and circumstances of the case. The person to be added must have a direct interest as distinguished from a commercial interest in the subject matter of litigation. 5. Reverting to the facts of the case, the impleading applicant contends that the vendor has executed a registered agreement for sale in his favor on 03.02.2016 and he has already taken shelter under Court of law by filing a suit in O.S.No.8/2022 for the relief of specific performance. If that be so, he can pursue his contentions in the said suit. Hence, his presence in the present suit is not necessary. The Trial Court rightly exercised the discretionary powers in rejecting the application. There is no need to interfere with the order of the Trial Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6536 WP No. 101728 of 2025 6. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is rejected. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP,RH LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 52