- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27957 WP No. 19708 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 19708 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI SARAVANAN M. PETHI S/O T.R. MUTHUSELVAM AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O 105, SELVAM INDUSTRIAL ESTATE MAGADI MAIN ROAD, A.D. HALLI HOUSING BOARD BUS STOP BENGALURU – 560 079. …PETITIONER (BY SRI ADARSHA K.K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI JAYAPRAKASH S/O MUNINAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O NO. 2, 1/1, NANDANAVANA, G.STREET, JOGU PALYA, ULSOOR, BENGALURU – 560 008. 2. SRI M. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O MUNINANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O D.NO.21/1, NANDANAVANAM, G. STREET, ULSOOR BENGALURU – 560 008. 3. SMT. M. VARALAKSHMI W/O SRI AMAR NARAYAN Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27957 WP No. 19708 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O D.NO.21/1 NANDANAVANAM, G STREET, ULSURU BENGALURU – 560 008. 4. SMT. M. PADMAVATHI W/O LATE JAGADEESH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O D.NO.21/1, NANDANAVANAM, G STREET, ULSURU BENGALURU – 560 008. 5. SMT. M. SHARADA W/O LATE MUNIKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/O D.NO.28/3, MARENAHALLI MAIN ROAD, 20TH MAIN, VIDYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 040. 6. SMT. SUJATHA W/O. LATE M. RAMA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O D.NO.28/3, MARENAHALLI MAIN ROAD, 20TH MAIN, VIDYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 040. 7. SRI MADAN KUMAR S/O LATE MURU KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O D.NO.28/3, MARENAHALLI MAIN ROAD, 20TH MAIN VIDYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 040. 8. SMT. B. SUJATHA W/O N. BUNTY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O D.21/1, KV LANE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27957 WP No. 19708 of 2025 COTTON PET, BENGALURU – 560 053. 9. SMT. M. VARALAKSHMI W/O. LATE M. GOPAL AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/O D.NO.5, 2ND MAIN 3RD CROSS, GOVINDARAJA NAGAR, VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 040. 10. SMT. G. GAYATHRI, W/O KEMPURAJU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O D. NO. 5, 2ND MAIN 3RD CROSS, GOVINDARAJA NAGARA VIJAYA NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 040. 11. SRI. G. MUNI ARASA, S/O LATE M. GOPAL AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O D.NO.5, 2ND MAIN 3RD CROSS, GOVINDARAJA NAGARA VIJAYA NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 040. 12. SMT. G. CHANDRAKALA W/O. RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O D.NO.5, 2ND MAIN 3RD CROSS, GOVINDARAJA NAGARA VIJAYA NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 040. 13. SRI G. MOHAN, S/O LATE M. GOPAL AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O D.NO.5, 2ND MAIN 3RD CROSS, GOVINDARAJA NAGARA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27957 WP No. 19708 of 2025 VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 040. 14. SMT. B. VIMALA, W/O B. RAVINDRANATHA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO 504, R.V.GAJENDRA NANDINI, GANDHINAGAR, HYDRABAD – 80. 15. SRI. R. PRAKASH S/O. T.M. RANGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O. NO.105, SY.NO.42/1 SELVAM INDUSTRIAL ESTATE MAGADI MAIN ROAD, A.D. HALLI, BENGALURU – 560 079. ALSO AT NO.24, 1ST MAIN ROAD RANGANATHAPURA, MAGADI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU – 560 079. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI YALLALINGESHWAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-14) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 27.06.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.9/2024 IN O.S.NO. 8803/2013 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH 31) VIDE ANNX-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27957 WP No. 19708 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner-plaintiff is before this Court calling in question an order passed by the concerned Court allowing an application filed by the proposed defendants 1 to 14 under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC. 2. Heard Sri Adarsha K K, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri Yallalingeshwar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 14. 3. The petitioner/plaintiff files a suit for eviction seeking to evict defendant/respondent No.15 herein. The defendant disputes the ownership of the plaintiff. In that light, when the matter was at an advance stage, an application comes to be filed by the proposed defendants 1 to 14 in I.A.No.9 under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, seeking to implead them as defendants 2 to 15, contending that they are the owners of the property. The concerned Court, by a detailed order, noticing - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27957 WP No. 19708 of 2025 the lis between the parties and to avoid another suit being filed, allows the application. The reason so rendered by the concerned court reads as follows: “…. …. …. REASONS 10. On perusal of the pleadings, the plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendant seeking to pass a Judgment and Decree to evict the defendant from the suit schedule premises and to direct him to hand over the vacant possession for other consequential reliefs. Further the plaintiff in his plaint has averred that the defendant is a tenant under him in respect of the suit schedule property and was inducted in the same on 01-12-2004 on a monthly rental basis. It is submitted that the defendant has stopped paying rents from 01-11- 2010 and has not paid rents even after several demands. Therefore, the plaintiff had issued legal notice on 11-11- 2013 and terminated the tenancy with the defendant. However, the defendant has not vacated the suit schedule premises and therefore, has filed the present suit. 11. On the other hand the defendant has filed written statement and seriously disputes the title and ownership of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. Further it is submitted that one Sri G Umesh has filed a suit in OS 25627/2014 against plaintiff and others before the City Civil Court, CCH-29 (Mayo hall), Bengaluru. The defendant though admits that he is a tenant in respect of the suit schedule property, disputes the title and ownership of the plaintiff in his written statement. 12. Further, the proposed defendants have also seriously disputing with the title and ownership of the plaintiff and also produced copies of the Partition Deed dt 10-10-1958, Sale Deed dt 23-09-1961, Inam order in Case No.64/1964, order dt 22-06-2017 passed by the Joint Director of Land records in RP 9/16-17, Order sheets in OS 638/2021 and plaint in OS 638/2021. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27957 WP No. 19708 of 2025 13. On perusal of the pleadings, applications and materials placed by the parties, it clearly appears that the plaintiff has filed eviction suit against the defendant and the defendant is seriously disputing the title and ownership of the plaintiff. Further, the proposed defendants are also seriously disputing the title and ownership of the plaintiff and also produced documents supporting their claim. This Court is of the view that in an eviction suit between the land lord and tenant, a person claiming independent title to the property may not always be a necessary or proper party. However, if the persons claim effects the very root of the landlords title, then their presence may be required. In the present suit the title and ownership of the plaintiff is in challenge and has to be determined during trial and the presence of impleading applicants is necessary for the proper and effective adjudication. Further, if the application is not allowed the same may lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore, under the above findings and observations this Court is of the view that allowing the application is necessary in order to ascertain the real controversy between the parties and to arrive at meaningful decision. 14. Point No. 2 :- On the basis of above findings and observations in respect of point No.1, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER The IA No. 9 filed by the proposed defendants U/o 1 R 10(2) of CPC is hereby allowed and permitted to come on record as defendant No.2 to 15. The counsel for the plaintiff is directed to carryout necessary amendment in the office with in 14 days.” A perusal at the reason so rendered would in no way indicate that the order of the concerned Court suffers from non- application of mind or perversity, for this Court to interfere and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27957 WP No. 19708 of 2025 interdict the order impugned in allowing the application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC seeking to implead defendants 2 to 15. 4. In that light, the petition not warranting any interference and being devoid of merits, stands rejected. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BKP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72