- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27487 W.P. No.44966/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.44966/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. KASTURI R. PUTHRAN AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS W/O R.C. PUTHRAN R/AT. AMBALAPADY VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK-576148. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NATARAJA BALLAL A, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. JAYA S. POOJARY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O K. SOMAPPA POOJARY "HARSHITHA NILAYA" DADDI ROAD KIDIYOOR VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK AND DIST-576148. 2. AMBALPADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH AMBALPADY UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576148 REP BY ITS PDO. …RESPONDENTS (R1 & R2 ARE SERVED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.02.2019 PASSED ON I.A.NO.3 IN O.S.552/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, UDUPI (ANNEXURE-A). ALLOW THE I.A.NO.3 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) OF THE CPC (ANNEXURE-D). AWARD COSTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27487 W.P. No.44966/2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: "(a) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 06.02.2019 passed on IA.No.3 in O.S.No.552/2013 on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge, Udupi (Annexure-A); (b) Allow the IA.No.3 filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the CPC (Annexure- D) (c) Award costs of the proceedings." 2. Sri.Nataraja Ballal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1 filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondent No.2 - Grama Panchayath. In the said suit the petitioner filed an application for impleadment. However, the trial Court rejected the same on the ground that the petitioner is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit. It is submitted that respondent No.1/plaintiff in the plaint itself has categorically stated that the petitioner has given the complaint to Grama Panchayath and at the instance of the petitioner's complaint, the Grama Panchayath has initiated action against respondent No.1. It is further submitted - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27487 W.P. No.44966/2019 that respondent No.2 - Grama Panchayath, who is required to take action as per the sanction plan and in accordance with law, failed to take action which compelled the petitioner to file the application for impleadment and pursue the suit, as respondent No.2 in collusion with the respondent No.1 is not defending the suit effectively. Hence, the petitioner being the complainant is required to assist the court in deciding the suit on its merits. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by allowing the application for impleadment. 3. Though the notice of this petition is served on Respondent Nos.1 and 2, they remained absent. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission advanced. 5. Respondent No.1 filed OS.No.552/2013 for a relief of permanent injunction against respondent No.2 - Grama Panchayath. The assertion in the plaint is that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27487 W.P. No.44966/2019 respondent No.1/plaintiff has put up construction and residing in the property which is owned by her. The records indicate that the petitioner lodged the complaint to respondent No.2 as it is evident from paragraph No.6 of the plaint alleging that respondent No.1 encroached the pathway and put up the compound wall. Based on the said complaint, respondent No.2 issued notice to respondent No.1 and after the issuance of notice, respondent No.1 filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondent No.2. The entire cause of action and action initiated by respondent No.2 against respondent No.1 is based on the complaint filed by the petitioner. In my considered view, the petitioner is a necessary as well as a proper party to decide the dispute between the parties in the suit, more particularly when the petitioner is specifically making assertion that respondent No.2- authority is not taking any action despite pointing out the violation by respondent No.1 and there is collusion between them. By arraying the petitioner in the said suit, it would be easy for the trial - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27487 W.P. No.44966/2019 Court to dispose of the suit in accordance with law as the petitioner being the complainant claims to have acquired all the documents to prove the factum of encroachment by respondent No.1. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 06.02.2019 passed on IA.No.3 in OS.No.552/2013 by the II Additional Civil Judge, Udupi is hereby set aside. iii) Consequently, IA.No.3 filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC is allowed. iv) The petitioner is permitted to come on record as defendant No.2 in the suit. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35