- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4682 WP No. 104662 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 104662 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O. RAMAPPA JADHAV, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: VADDAR ONI, NEAR SIDDESHWAR TEMPLE, P.B. ROAD, UNKAL, HUBBALLI, TAL: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580 020. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESH I. ZIRALI, ADVOCATE) AND: MOHAN S/O. RAMAPPA JADHAV, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: NOT KNOWN, R/O: MOORUSAVIRAMATH ROAD, OPP HUNAGUND OIL MILL, HUBBALLI, TAL: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580 020. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.V. SOMAPUR, SMT. N.B. SOMAPUR, SRI. C.B. SHAKUNAVALLI AND SRI. CHETAN RATTIHALLI, ADVOCATES-ABSENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4682 WP No. 104662 of 2023 ORAL ORDER Sri.Ramesh I.Zirali., counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person. When the matter is called, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent, either personally or through video conferencing. As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the petition was listed on 06.03.2025, on that day; there was no representation on behalf of the respondent. Hence, for the appearance of counsel for the respondent, it was ordered to be listed on 12.03.2025. The petition is listed today. As already noted above, when the matter is called, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent, either personally or through video conferencing, this Court deems it proper to pass an order on the merits of the case. 2. The caption Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 23.06.2023 passed by the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Nargund on I.A.No’s.III and V in O.S.No.30/2021 vide Annexure-D. 3. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4682 WP No. 104662 of 2023 4. The short facts are these: The plaintiff filed a suit seeking the relief of declaration that the Registered General Power of Attorney dated 24.10.1996 vide document No.08/1996-97 standing in the name of the defendant is false, illegal and forged one and consequential relief of permanent injunction. The plaintiff applied to Order I Rule 10 of CPC contending that the proposed defendants have purchased the plots in the suit schedule property from defendant No.1 on the strength of the forged power of attorney. The defendant did not file objections. However, the Trial Court vide order dated 23.06.2023 rejected the application. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. 5. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with utmost care. 6. The facts are sufficiently stated and they do not require reiteration. The issue falls around a narrow compass and relates to the rejection of the impleading application. The - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4682 WP No. 104662 of 2023 plaintiff contends that he has not executed power of attorney in favor of his brother. Hence, he was constrained to file a suit. The plaintiff’s grievance is that on the strength of the forged power of attorney, his brother had sold the plots in the suit schedule property in favor of the proposed defendants. Hence, the plaintiff intends to bring them on record. The Trial Court rejected the application solely on the ground that the burden is on the proposed defendants to prove that they are bonafide purchasers. This is untenable in law. The plaintiff’s grievance is about the execution of the power of attorney and the sale of property in favor of the proposed defendants. If that be so, the proposed defendants are proper and necessary parties to the suit. No prejudice would be caused to the defendant. The Trial Court has overlooked this aspect of the matter and erroneously rejected the application. Therefore, this Court deems it proper to quash the order passed by the Trial Court. 7. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated 23.06.2023 passed by the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., at Nargund on I.A.Nos.III and V in O.S.No.30/2021 vide Annexure-D is quashed. Consequently, the impleading application is allowed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4682 WP No. 104662 of 2023 8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE CLK LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 61