Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 62131 (KAR)

SHRI. RAVI S/O GOVIND KAMBLE v. SHRI. SUBHASH S/O LAXMAN CHOUGALA

WP/100308/2022 · 2025-12-02

Anant Ramanath Hegde

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17072 WP No. 100308 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 100308 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SHRI RAVI S/O GOVIND KAMBLE, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT NAGANUR PA, ATHANI TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. UMESH P. HAKKARAKI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. SUBHASH S/O LAXMAN CHOUGALA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT NAGANUR PA, ATHANI TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT. 2. SHRI. DURGAPPA S/O BALAPPA KAMBLE, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT NAGANUR PA, ATHANI TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.H. BAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18/09/2021 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ATHANI IN O.S. NO.62/2019 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION (I.E. I.A. NO.2/2020) FILED BY PETITIONER HEREIN AT ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.12.10 16:35:41 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17072 WP No. 100308 of 2022 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 17.09.2021 passed on I.A.No.II in O.S.No.62/2019 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Athani, rejecting the application of the petitioner, who intended to come on record as defendant No.2 in OS No.62/2019. 3. The said O.S.No.62/2019 is a suit for specific performance filed by respondent No.1 herein against one Durgappa Balappa Kamble. The petitioner claims that OS No.82 of 2017 is filed by the petitioner against Durgappa Balappa Kamble for specific performance of contract and said suit is decreed and before the sale deed is executed, one more suit is filed in OS No.62 of 2019 against Durgappa Balappa Kamble and injunction is obtained against Durgappa Balappa Kamble from transferring the suit property. Under these circumstances, petitioner intends to come on record. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17072 WP No. 100308 of 2022 4. However, it is noticed that the Trial Court has rejected the application on the premise that the petitioner is not a necessary party to the proceeding. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the application to implead the petitioner in the suit for specific performance in OS No.62 of 2019 was rejected, despite there being a decree in his favour in respect to the same property in OS No.82 of 2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit because of the injunction order granted in the second suit, he is not in a position to execute the decree. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 would submit that respondent No.1 is the holder of registered agreement for sale, and the petitioner’s agreement for sale is unregistered, and in a suit for specific performance filed by respondent No.1, the petitioner is not a necessary party. 7. The Court has noticed the decree for specific performance in O.S.No.82/2017 in favour of the petitioner. Thus, he is entitled to have a say in a subsequent suit in respect of the property for which there is a decree in his favour. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17072 WP No. 100308 of 2022 8. Under these circumstances, the Court is of the view that the petitioner is a necessary party to the proceeding and the Trial Court could not have rejected the application. 9. Hence, the following: ORDER a) The writ petition is allowed. b) The order dated 17.09.2021 passed on I.A.No.II in O.S.No.62/2019 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Athani, is set aside. c) The petitioner is allowed to come on record and participate in the proceeding. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE AM/PMP CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 54