- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26439 W.P. No.35583/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.35583/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. NAGARAJA A.V. S/O SRI. A. VENKATA RAMANA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.143, F-ROAD IDEAL HOMES, PHASE-II R.R. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 098. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASANNA V.R. ADV.,) AND: 1. MR. SHANKARAIAH S/O HANUMAIAH AGE: MAJOR R/AT NO.238 & 239 VINAYAKA LAYOUT ADJACENT TO SIR. M. VISHWESHWARAIAH LAYOUT, 3RD BLOCK, ULLAL BENGALURU-560 056. 2. SMT. H.V. VEENA W/O SHANKARAIAH AGE: MAJOR R/AT NO.238 & 239, VINAYAKA LAYOUT ADJACENT TO SIR M. VISHWESHWARAIAH LAYOUT, 3RD BLOCK, ULLAL BENGALURU-560 056. 3. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS DEPUTY SECRETARY-1 BENGALURU-560 020. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26439 W.P. No.35583/2019 (BY SRI. K.N. PRAKASHA, ADV., FOR R1 SRI. GURURAJ S. SANGOOR, ADV., FOR R2 R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - - - THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE ORDER DTD:21.6.2019 ON I.A.NO.4 IN O.S.NO.4854/2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE [CCH-64] BENGALURU CITY, CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking for the following relief: "Issue a writ of certiorari, quashing the order dated 21.06.2019 on I.A.No.4 in O.S.No.4854/2017 passed by the learned LXIII. Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-64), Bengaluru City, certified copy of which is produced at Annexure-A." 2. Sri.Prasanna V.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit against the respondents herein for a relief of permanent injunction as well as mandatory injunction contending that the defendants have encroached the petitioner's suit schedule property and put up the construction in violation of the sanctioned plan. It is submitted that in the written statement filed by the defendant - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26439 W.P. No.35583/2019 No.2, it was specifically contended that the petitioner-plaintiff did not approach the Court with clean hands, as the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) had not been arrayed as a party to the proceedings. Hence, the petitioner has filed an application to implead the BDA for a complete adjudication of the dispute. It is further submitted that the defendants have denied the case of the petitioner-plaintiff with regard to the extent, ownership, etc. Hence, the BDA being the Authority which has allotted the site in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff, is a necessary and proper party to the suit. The Trial Court, without appreciating the same, has rejected the application. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order and by impleading the BDA as a defendant in the suit. 3. Per contra, Sri.K.N.Prakasha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 supports the impugned order of the Trial Court and submits that the Trial Court, taking note of the nature of pleading and prayer sought, rejected the application which does not call for any interference. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26439 W.P. No.35583/2019 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by both the sides. 5. The pleading and material on record indicate that the petitioner filed O.S.No.4854/2017 seeking the relief of permanent injunction as well as mandatory injunction against the defendants-respondents alleging that the defendants have encroached the petitioner's property and put up the construction in violation of the building plan. The said assertion of the petitioner has been denied by the other side in the written statement. A specific objection was raised in the written statement by the defendant No.2 that the petitioner did not array the BDA as a party to the suit. Hence, the application is filed to implead the BDA as a party to the suit. In my considered view, the Trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the said application as no relief was sought against the BDA in the pending suit and if the other side disputes with regard to the title, the burden is on them to prove the said - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26439 W.P. No.35583/2019 assertion made in the written statement. It is the case of the petitioner-plaintiff that the BDA had allotted the site in his favour under the registered sale deed dated 20.10.2003 and in violation of the schedule to the sale deed, the defendants are putting up the construction. The Trial Court is required to consider the case of the petitioner based on the pleadings and the prayer sought. No relief is sought against the BDA. In my considered view, the BDA is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff against the defendants for permanent as well as mandatory injunction. The contention taken by the defendants with regard to non- arraying of the BDA could not have any bearing on the claim of the petitioner as the petitioner is seeking the relief against the defendants in the suit that they be restrained from interfering and also for a mandatory injunction to remove the illegal structures put up by the defendants over the suit schedule property. When the prayer sought is against the defendants, the contention raised by the defendants in the written statement has no bearing as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26439 W.P. No.35583/2019 6. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23