- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42614 WP No. 10074 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 10074 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. MAHESH B.M S/O LATE MAYI GOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 2. RAJESH B.M S/O LATE MAYI GOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. BOTH ARE R/AT NO. BASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE MALIYUR POST, BANNUR HOBLI T NARASIPURA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 124. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI RUPESH KUMAR S, ADV.) AND: 1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS. 2. SMT. MANGALAMMA W/O LATE RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. 3. SMT. MAMATHA W/O LATE RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 4. SRI RAMEGOWDA S/O LATE RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42614 WP No. 10074 of 2024 5. SMT. SANDHYA C P W/O RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS. 6. PAVANI D/O RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS. 7. YASHWANTH GOWDA C R S/O RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS. 8. YASHMITHA C R D/O RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS. R-6 TO R-8 ARE MINORS BEING REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN 4TH RESPONDENT FATHER. 9. SRI LAKSHMANA S/O LATE RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. 10. SMT. RAMYA C N W/O LAKSHMANA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS. RES. NO.1 TO 10 ARE R/AT CHINKANKALLU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 439. 11. GIRISH B S/O BETTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. 12. S. SUJATHA W/O GIRISH B AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. RES. NO.11 AND 12 ARE R/AT CHIKKANKANAHALLI VILLAGE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42614 WP No. 10074 of 2024 KASABA HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 439. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRIVENKATESH D NAIK, ADV., FOR SRI M.M. ASHOKA, ADV., FOR R-11 & R-12; R-1, R-4 TO R-8, R-10 SERVED - UNREPRESENTED; V/O/D 08.10.2025, NOTICE TO R-2, R-3 & R-9 IS D/W) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 18.01.2024 PASSED ON IA NO. 5 FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) OF CPC BEFORE THE LEARNED PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SRIRANGAPATNA IN OS NO. 95/2022, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Plaintiffs are before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 18.01.2024 passed on IA No.5 filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC in OS No.95/2022 by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Srirangapatna. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Plaintiffs have filed OS No.95/2022 against the defendants with a prayer to grant the relief of specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 01.12.2021. In - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42614 WP No. 10074 of 2024 the said suit, the original defendants have entered appearance and have filed a detailed written statement opposing the suit. It appears that in the said suit, plaintiffs have filed IA No.1 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 of CPC against the original defendants with a prayer to restrain them from alienating the suit schedule property. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court on 31.10.2022 and the defendants were restrained from alienating the suit schedule property until further orders. It appears that defendants have thereafter executed an agreement for sale in respect of the proposed defendants and therefore, plaintiffs had filed IA No.5 under Order I Rule 10 of CPC with a prayer to implead the proposed defendants as party defendant Nos.11 and 12 in the suit. The said application was opposed by the proposed defendants by filing objections and the Trial Court vide the order impugned has rejected IA No.5. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs are before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition has prayed to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondents has opposed the prayer made in the petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42614 WP No. 10074 of 2024 6. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that suit in OS No.95/2022 is filed by the plaintiffs against defendant Nos.1 to 10 for specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 01.12.2021. In the said suit, on the application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 of CPC, the Trial Court has passed an order of temporary injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 to 10 from alienating the suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit. According to the petitioners, in violation of the said order, defendants have executed an agreement for sale in favour of the proposed defendants and therefore, the proposed defendants are just and necessary parties to the suit. The Trial Court, having appreciated that the proposed defendants are only the agreement holders and their right under the said agreement is not crystallized, has rejected the prayer made in IA No.5 by the plaintiffs. 7. It is trite that any transaction made in respect of the property which is subject matter of a suit, the same is hit by the principle of lis pendence as provided under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. If the defendants have - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42614 WP No. 10074 of 2024 violated the order of temporary injunction and have executed the agreement for sale in favour of the proposed defendants in respect of the property which is subject matter of the suit, it is always open for the plaintiffs to file necessary application before the Trial Court to take appropriate action against the defendants for having willfully violated the order of temporary injunction. Further, in the event, if the agreement holders who claim under the original defendants attempts to change the nature of the property in any other manner or interferes with the suit schedule property, then it is for the plaintiffs to seek appropriate relief before the Trial Court against the defendants and all persons claiming under them, for the purpose of protecting the nature of the suit schedule property. However, the proposed purchasers in whose favour the original defendants have executed an agreement for sale cannot be considered as a proper and necessary party to a suit which is filed for specific performance of an agreement which is said to have been executed by the original owners of the suit schedule property, who are defendant Nos.1 to 10 in the present suit. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the Trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the application IA No.5 filed by - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42614 WP No. 10074 of 2024 the petitioners. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the said order. According, the writ petition is dismissed. 8. In view of the disposal of the main petition, pending interlocutory application if any, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the same is disposed off. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32