- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43906 WP No. 32677 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 32677 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI SHANMUGHAM @ SOMANNA S/O, LATE. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, 2. SRI SHIVAKUAM, S/O. SHANMUGHAM @ SOMANNA. AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 3. SRI. RAMASWAMY, S/O. SHANMUGHAM @ SOMANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 4. SRI. MURTHY, S/O. SHANMUGHAM @ SOMANNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT. THIPPAPURA VILLAGE, VEERAPURA POST, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, KASABA HOBLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SURESH S.,ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43906 WP No. 32677 of 2025 AND: 1. SRI SANDESH N S/O. N NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/A NO. BOODIHALLA VILLAGE, CHANARAYAPTNA HOBLI, DEVANHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU 562 110. 2. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA, W/O. LATE. SEENAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/A NO. BOODIHALLA VILLAGE, CHANARAYAPTNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU 562110. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING IN OS NO. 505/2024 ORDER DATED 26.06.2025, PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT CHIKKABALLAPUR IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS I.E. UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) CPC READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CPC FOR IMPLEADING THE PETITIONERS AS A PROPOSED DEFENDANT NO 2 TO 5, VIDE ANNEXURE - A.B. ISSUE A; WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECT BY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) CPC READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CPC FOR IMPLEADING THE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43906 WP No. 32677 of 2025 PETITIONERS AS A PROPOSED DEFENDANT NO 2 TO 5 VIDE ANNEXURE- E. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioners' application [I.A. No.2] under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to implead themselves as second to fifth defendants in the suit in O.S. No.505/2024 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkaballapur [for short, 'the civil Court'] is rejected by the order dated 26.06.2025. The civil Court has rejected this application opining that in a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff would be dominus litis, and the plaintiff cannot be compelled to implead a person to the suit when such person is not a party to the contract. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43906 WP No. 32677 of 2025 2. The first respondent has filed a suit in O.S. No.505/2024 for specific performance of the Sale Agreement dated 03.09.2021 executed by the second respondent asserting that he has right to purchase three parcels of lands including the lands measuring 3 acres 31 guntas in Sy. No.43 of Avalahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chikkaballapura Taluk. The petitioners assert an interest in this parcel of land measuring 3 acres 15 guntas, and that they are not interested in the other two parcels of lands that are mentioned as item Nos.1 and 3 of the plaint schedule. 3. The petitioners' grievance with the impugned order is examined in the light of the following: [i] A certain Anand S/o Shanmugham has applied for resumption and restoration of the subject property under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43906 WP No. 32677 of 2025 [Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands] Act, 1978 [for short, 'the Act']. The Assistant Commissioner has rejected this application, but the Deputy Commissioner has allowed such application. [ii] The purchaser, the plaintiff in this suit, has called in question the orders of the Deputy Commissioner before this Court in the writ petition in W.P. No.37900/2009, which is decided on 23.05.2011 and this writ petition is rejected. [iii] However, the intra-Court appeal as against this Court's order dated 23.05.2011 in the Writ Appeal in W.A. No. 2547/2013 is allowed setting aside both the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and this Court. The Division Bench's order is in the light of the report placed before it about the applicant's Caste Certificate. It is with this vindication that the second - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43906 WP No. 32677 of 2025 respondent has asserted an exclusive interest in the subject property. 4. Sri Suresh S, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the first petitioner [who is related to the applicant in the proceedings mentioned above] has filed an appeal as is contemplated under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes [Reservation of Appointments etc.] Act, 1990 which is allowed by Order dated 22.07.2024 and with this vindication, the petitioners are entitled to the subject property, and therefore, the petitioners are well within their rights to seek their impleadment in the suit. 5. This Court must observe that the question of title in the second respondent cannot be gone into in the suit for specific performance and if the petitioners do indeed establish their rights for resumption and restoration under the Act, that right would inure to them not just against the second - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43906 WP No. 32677 of 2025 respondent but even against the first respondent, if indeed the suit is decreed. Therefore, there is no reason for interference with the impugned order and the present petition must be disposed of without prejudice to the petitioners' rights under the Act and it stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-