- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9895 WP No. 107337 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 107337 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SHRI SUNIL MANOHAR NAIK AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC. TAILOR, R/O. CTS NO. 1364, BASAWAN GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. NAGARATHNA S. PATTAR AND SRI. S.N. PATTAR, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SHRI. KAMALKAR MANOHAR NAIK AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC. RETD., R/O. CTS NO 1364, BASAWAN GALLI, BELAGAVI AND CURRENTLY RESIDING AT ZION SQUARE, BLOCK NO.D1, FLAT NO 302, SHELPEM DHULER, MAPSA, GOA-403507. SMT. SHAKUNTALA, D/O. SHANTAPPA UPADHYE, DIED ON 25.12.2018 THROUGH ONE OF HER LEGAL HEIRS R2 & R3 2. SRI. MAYUR S/O. MANOHAR AJGAONKAR, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. 304, ‘GHATAPRABHA’, Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9895 WP No. 107337 of 2024 KHB HERITABLE, JAKKERIHONDA, INDRAPRASTHA NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590001. 3. SMT. MADHAVI D/O. MANOHAR ASGAONKAR, AFTER MARRIAGE SMT. SARITA W/O. SUNIL NAIK, R/O. CTS NO. 1364, BASAWAN GALLI, BELAGAVI. 4. SHRI VINAY CHARKI AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. CTS. NO. 1364, NAMMA MANE HOTEL, RAMLINGKHIND GALLI, OPP. RANGUBAI PALACE, BELAGAVI. 5. SMT. SANGEETA W/O. VINAY CHARKI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. CTS. NO. 1364, NAMMA MANE HOTEL, RAMLINGKHIND GALLI, OPP. RANGUBAI PALACE, BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS --- THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1950, PRAYING TO; A) A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 23/08/2024 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. BELAGAVI ON THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) R/W. SEC. 151 OF CPC IN O.S. NO. 05/2021 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E. B) ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION OR ORDER THE PETITIONER IS FOUND ENTITLED TO. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9895 WP No. 107337 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a) A Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ or order or direction quashing the order dated 23/08/2024 passed by the Hon’ble IV Addl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. Belagavi on the application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) R/w. Sec. 151 of CPC in O.S. No.05/2021 produced at Annexure-E. b) Issue any other writ or direction or order the petitioner is found entitled to. 2. Respondent No.1 had filed a suit seeking a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove all their belongings from the suit property and stop using the suit property. In the said suit, an application under Rule 10 of Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure had been filed, to implead respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein, on the ground that they are also in possession of the subject property. It is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9895 WP No. 107337 of 2024 challenging the said order that the petitioner, who was the original defendant No.2, is before this Court. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the proposed defendants, i.e., respondent Nos.4 and 5, have vacated the premises and, as such, they were not required to be brought on record as party defendants and no relief can be claimed against them. 4. The suit virtually being one for possession, I am of the considered opinion that, when allegations have been made by the plaintiff that someone else is in possession of the property, those persons would be required to be brought on record as party defendants. If at all they are not in possession, it would be for them to make their submissions before the Trial Court and not for the existing defendants to contend that those persons are not to be brought on record by claiming that they were tenants of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9895 WP No. 107337 of 2024 petitioner who have vacated the premises. These matters would have to be determined during the course of the trial and cannot be so determined at the time of consideration of an application under Rule 10 of Order I of the Civil Procedure Code. 5. With the above observation, the petition stands disposed of at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE gab CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 6