- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45301 WP No. 20096 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 20096 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. NARASIMHAPPA, S/O LATE HALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDENT OF SUNKADAKATTA VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI P.N. HARISH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VISHWANATHA D. H., S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 2. MANJUNATHA D. H., S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 3. CHANDRU, S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 4. HEMALATHA, D/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 ARE RESIDENTS OF SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE, Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45301 WP No. 20096 of 2025 HONNALI TALUK 577217, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 5. VEENA, D/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O KANIVEMANE VILLAGE, AMATEKOPPA POST, SHIKARIPURA TALUK 577427, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. 6. JANATHA @ JAYALAKSHMI, D/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O KUNDALAGALLU VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 577001. 7. REKHA, D/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O DUPPADAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK 577427, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. 8. KENCHAPPA, S/O LATE RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 9. BASAVARAJAPPA, S/O LATE RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 10. CHANDRASHEKARA, S/O LATE RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 11. VASANTHAPPA S/O LATE RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45301 WP No. 20096 of 2025 12. NARASIMHAPPA KIRIGERAMANA, S/O LATE RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 8 TO 12 ARE RESIDENTS OF SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK 57217, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.04.2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HONNALI ON IA No.3 IN OS No.116/2022 PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-G AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER Heard Sri P.N. Harish, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition is filed assailing the order dated 21.04.2025 passed on I.A. No. 3 in O.S. No. 116/2022 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Honnali. 3. Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 instituted O.S. No. 116/2022 against respondent Nos. 8 to 12 seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining them, their men, agents, supporters, labourers, contractors, henchmen, etc., from in any manner - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45301 WP No. 20096 of 2025 interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. After service of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed their written statement. 3.1 The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC seeking to implead himself as defendant No. 6, contending that the suit schedule property is a common family property and that he has a right therein; hence, he is a proper and necessary party to the proceedings. The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs. By the impugned order, the Trial Court rejected the application. 4. Sri P.N. Harish, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has a right in the suit schedule property and that, if the relief sought in the suit is granted, the petitioner’s rights and possession would be adversely affected. Learned counsel further contends that the Trial Court, without considering these material aspects, has erroneously rejected the application. 5. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the writ petition papers. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45301 WP No. 20096 of 2025 6. The suit in question is one for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs have pleaded that they are in possession of the suit schedule property and that the defendants are interfering with such possession. 6.1 The Trial Court, having observed that the grievance of the petitioner is only against the defendants, held that the plaintiffs cannot be presumed to have any cause of action against the proposed defendant. It further held that, in a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiffs are the masters of their suit and may seek restraint orders only against those persons who are allegedly interfering with their possession. The Trial Court also held that, in the absence of any grievance by the plaintiffs against the proposed defendant, no cause of action arises for them to implead him. The Trial Court concluded that if the proposed impleading applicant has any right or interest in the suit schedule property, he is at liberty to institute a separate suit seeking appropriate reliefs. Accordingly, the application was dismissed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45301 WP No. 20096 of 2025 7. On perusal of the reasons assigned by the Trial Court, it is evident that the plaintiffs have a grievance only against the defendants, and they cannot be compelled to implead the proposed defendant namely, the petitioner, when no cause of action is disclosed against him. If the petitioner’s right or interest in the suit schedule property is affected, it is always open to him to institute a separate suit seeking appropriate reliefs. The order of the Trial Court, therefore, stands justified. No ground is made out to warrant interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3