- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51427 WP No. 15574 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO.15574 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. JAMUNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS D/O MADAPPA RESIDING AT NO.2457, 66TH B MAIN, HAL II STAGE INDIRA NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 008 REPRESENTED BY HER GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHRI H. Y. LAKSHMINARAYANA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE YELLAPPA RESIDING AT HUCHANAPALYA VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVARAMU H C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. H B NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O LATE BETTAIAH R/O HUCHANAPALYA VILLAGE DASANAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK 2. SMT. MUTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS W/O H B NARAYANA Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51427 WP No. 15574 of 2020 R/O HUCHANAPALYA VILLAGE DASANAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK 3. HARISH KUMAR H. N. AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O H. B. NARAYANA R/O HUCHANAPALYA VILLAGE DASANAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK 4. KIRAN KUMAR H. N. AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS S/O H. B. NARAYANA R/O HUCHANAPALYA VILLAGE DASANAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK 5. SMT. N. SHESHIREKA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS D/O H. B. NARAYANA RESIDING AT HUCHANAPALYA VILLAGE DASANAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK 6. SMT. G. SAVITHRAMMA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, W/O R. SIDDAIAH, R/O KASARGHATTA VILLAGE, KAMBALU POST, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. 7. NARASIMHAMURTHY K. V., AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O VENKATAMUNIYAPPA, R/O KENCHANAPURA VILLAGE, SULIKERE POST, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560 060 …RESPONDENTS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51427 WP No. 15574 of 2020 (BY SRI. V. NAGAREDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; SRI. N. MUNIVENKATAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R6; R7 IS SERVED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR SIMILAR WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.11.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NELAMANGALA ON IA NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Plaintiff is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set- aside the order dated 07.11.2020 passed on IA No.3 in OS No.477/2012 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. OS No.477/2012 is filed before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural District by the petitioner herein seeking specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 28.02.2011. In the said suit, respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein, who are defendants Nos.1 to 5 have filed their written - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51427 WP No. 15574 of 2020 statement opposing the suit claim. When the suit was at the stage of further cross-examination of PW1, IA No.3 was filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC with a prayer to implead respondent Nos.6 and 7 herein as party defendant Nos.6 and 7 in the suit. The said application was opposed by the proposed defendants by filing objections. The Trial Court vide the order impugned has rejected IA No.3. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that proposed defendants are the purchasers of the suit schedule property in respect of which an agreement for sale dated 28.02.2011 was executed by defendant Nos.1 to 5 in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, proposed defendants become proper party in the suit which is filed seeking specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 28.02.2011. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. In the absence of the proposed defendants, even if a decree is granted in favour of the petitioner, the same would not be binding on them. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51427 WP No. 15574 of 2020 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondents submits that petitioner was aware of the two sale deeds that were executed in favour of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 by the original defendants even before she had filed the suit in OS No.477/2012. After the sale deeds were executed in favour of respondent Nos.6 and 7, when the entries in the revenue records were sought to be changed, the petitioner had opposed the same. The said aspect of the matter has been admitted by PW1 during the course of his cross-examination. Impleadment of the proposed defendants in the suit is likely to change the very nature of the suit, which is not permissible. The Trial Court having appreciated all these aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed IA No.3. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 6. Suit in OS No.477/2012 has been filed by the petitioner herein seeking specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 28.02.2011 said to have been executed in her favour by defendant Nos.1 to 5 in the suit. It appears that after the execution of agreement for sale dated 28.02.2011, defendant Nos.1 to 5 had executed a sale deed in respect of suit schedule - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51427 WP No. 15574 of 2020 property in favour of respondent No.6 herein on 05.04.2012. Thereafter, respondent No.6 had sold the said property in favour of respondent No.7 under a registered sale deed dated 23.07.2012. Learned counsel for contesting respondents has brought to the notice of this Court that petitioner was very well aware of the aforesaid two sale deeds even prior to she filing OS No.477/2012 seeking specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 28.02.2011. The Trial Court in the order impugned has observed that during the course of cross- examination, PW1 has admitted about this aspect of the matter. IA No.3 is now filed seeking impleadment of the purchasers after a lapse of more than 7 years and that too, when the suit was at the stage of cross-examination of PW1. The Trial Court having taken note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurmit Singh Bhatia vs. Kiran Kant Robinson and Others (2019 SAR Civil 908) and also other judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court wherein it is held that a subsequent purchaser of the property which is subject matter of suit for specific performance, being a third party to the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51427 WP No. 15574 of 2020 contract, is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit, has rejected IA No.3. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. J. N. Real Estate vs. Shailendra Pradhan and Others. - Civil Appeal Nos.5405-5406 of 2025 and has submitted that though the subsequent purchaser cannot be considered as a necessary party, he is definitely a proper party and therefore, Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application. 8. In the case of M/s. J N Real Estate (supra), the subsequent purchaser himself had filed application seeking impleadment whereas the same is not the fact situation in the present case. In addition to the same, sale transactions in the present case are prior to the petitioner filing the suit for specific performance. Petitioner was all along aware of the sale deeds executed in favour of respondent Nos.6 and 7 in respect of the suit schedule property even before filing of the suit and had kept quiet for seven long years and thereafter, when the suit was at the stage of further cross-examination of PW1, the present application is filed. It is trite that a subsequent - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51427 WP No. 15574 of 2020 purchaser of the property can be considered only as a proper party and not necessary party. Impleadment of such a person is at the discretion of the Trial Court depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, for the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was fully justified in rejecting IA No.3. Under the circumstances, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 9. Since the suit is of the year 2012, the Trial Court shall make endeavours to expedite the trial and dispose off the suit on its merits at the earliest. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34