- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.6448 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1 . MRS. P. SWAPNA D/O P. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.349, 15TH CROSS 17TH MAIN, 4TH SECTOR HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560102. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHENNAKESHAVA B.S. ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . MRS. NEELAMMA .N W/O SHAMA REDDY D/O NANJAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. 2 . MRS. AMBIKA K.S. D/O SHAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 3 . MRS. BHAVANI K.S. D/O SHAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 4 . MRS. SANDYA RANI K.S. D/O SHAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. NO.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT NO.45/E 5TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN, KORAMANGALA ® - 2 - (JAKKASANDRA BLOCK) BANGALORE-560034. 5 . MR. B. PRASANNAIAH S/O BRAHMASURIAIAH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT NO.17, 'SHIVA GEETHA' KAS OFFICER'S LAYOUT 1ST MAIN, DOLLORS COLONY J P NAGAR, 4TH PHASE BANGALORE-560078. 6 . MR. M.K. HARIPRASAD S/O H.B. MARLA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT NO.176, F BLOCK 4TH STREET, 1ST FLOOR ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAKASH GOKLONY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAMESHA C.N. ADVOCATE FOR R6 V/O/DTD:27.01.2023, NOTICE TO R1 TO R4 ARE D/W V/O/DTD: 06.08.2025, NOTICE TO R5 IS D/W) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD.24.6.2020 PASSED BY THE LXXV ADDL. (CCH -76) CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE ON IA NO.2 UNDER ORDER I RILE 10(2) OF CPC FILED BY THE R-6 TO PERMITTING TO COME ON RECORD AS DEFENDANT NO.6 IN O.S.NO.7690/2016 & ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 09.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO - 3 - CAV ORDER This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 24.06.2020 on I.A. No.2 under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S. No.7690/2016 on the file of LXXV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore. 2. The Petitioner herein is the plaintiff before the Trial Court and respondents are the defendants before the trial court. 3. The facts of the case are as follows: The Respondents No. 1 to 4 had represented through their GPA holder Respondent No.5 that, they are the absolute owners in possession of the immovable property measuring 00.08.70 guntas in Sy.No. 18/5, 19/5, 19/6A, 19/6B, 19/7 and 19/8 situated at Rupena Agrahara Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore. Respondents no.1 to 4 executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of B.Prasanniah the Respondent No.5 - 4 - herein which is registered as document No. JAY-4-00472- 2013-14, CD No. JAYD 180 dated 07.09.2013, book no.4 in the office of the sub-registrar Jaynagar Bangalore. Respondent No.5 being the GPA holder of the owners Respondent No.1 to 4 offered to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the petitioner herein for the sale consideration of Rs.4,00,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores Only). Thereafter, an agreement of sale dated 18.05.2016 was executed between the petitioner and the respondent No.5. As per the Agreement of Sale, the execution and registration of Deed of Conveyance would be completed when the balance Sale Consideration was paid by the petitioner herein and on request made to the petitioner for the additional sale consideration of Rs.70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs Only) and the same was paid as an addendum to the sale agreement was executed on 21.06.2016. So, in total petitioner had totally paid an amount of Rs.2,70,00,000/- (Two Crores Seventy Lakhs Only). - 5 - In order to pay the balance sale consideration and get the sale deed registered, the petitioner called the Respondent No.5 on behalf of Respondents No.1 to 4. Surprisingly, Respondent No.5 was avoiding calls and being elusive. This being the case, petitioner got issued 28.07.2016 and again on 23.08.2016 calling upon the Respondent No.5 showing his readiness and willingness to purchase. Since the Respondents did not come forward despite the petitioner’s willingness to complete the sale, the petitioner was constrained to file a suit and simultaneously, a suit was filed in O.S.No. 7690/2016 on the file of LXXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge. On filing the suit, written statement was filed. In the meanwhile Respondent No. 6 filed an application to implead as a party on the ground that Respondent No. 1 to 4 have executed the Agreement of sale in favour of him and the Respondent No. 5 had received sale consideration of Rs.1,45,05,051/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Five Lakhs Five Thousand and Fifty One Only) from him. And also that respondent no 1 to 4 have also executed a registered - 6 - irrevocable power of attorney in his name and Respondent No.5 herein jointly. The petitioner has filed detailed objections and the Trial Court after hearing both the sides, allowed the application and impleaded the applicant. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition has been filed. 4. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and Respondent no.6. The notice to Respondents 1 to 4 is dispensed with. Notice has been served to Respondent No.5. 5. The Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the applicant concocted some documents to deprive the legal rights of the petitioner herein with an intention to delay the proceedings purported sale agreement and power of attorney dated 17.01.2015 are fabricated documents and not valid. 6. It was also contended that the court below has failed to consider the re-conveyance deed executed by the Bangalore development Authority in favour of Respondent - 7 - No. 1 to 4 and respondent no.5 reveals that Respondent No-6 has no right over the suit schedule property. 7. It was further contended that the trial Court erred in considering the fact that the suit arises out of the contract between the petitioner and the Respondents No. 1 to 5 herein and therefore third party’s claim is not germane for a decision. 8. It is further contended that was raised was that if the application has to be allowed, the suit will be turned into a regular title suit which is beyond the scope and specific performance suit cannot be turned into a regular title suit. 9. It was also contended that the Court below has failed to consider that the suit for specific performance of contract for sale cannot at all affect the right, title and interest of the third party in respect of the contracted property and moreover, petitioner who have filed the present suit for specific performance of contract for sale is dominus litus and cannot be forced to add parties against - 8 - whom he does not want to fight unless it is a compulsion of the rule of law. 10. It can be observed from the Order of the trial Court that the plaintiff has produced registered power of attorney dated 06.09.2013 executed by defendant no.1 to 4 along with plaint and the Proposed defendant has also produced the copies of registered agreement of sale deed dated 16.01.2015 and registered irrevocable power of attorney dated 16.01.2015. The trial court has also given the finding that both documents have been executed by defendants No.1 to 4 in favour of defendant No.5 and proposed defendant authorizing them to do the acts including to get deed/sale executed by the Bangalore Development Authority conveying the schedule property or any alternate sale allotted in favour of defendants No.1 to 4. The trial Court further clearly found that by virtue of irrevocable power of attorney, defendants no.1 to 4 appointed proposed defendant no.5 and proposed defendant as their agents and the documents prima facie - 9 - disclose that they were jointly appointed to do certain acts including to sell the property. 11. It can be further observed that the trial Court has given a finding that the applicant has made out a prima facie case to show that he is having direct interest in the suit schedule property and the Court cannot adjudicate the right and interest of the proposed defendant in the present case. Lastly, Court by observing that if the proposed defendant is impleaded he could assist the Court to adjudicate the dispute properly and therefore, he is a necessary party to the proceedings and allowed the application. 12. On hearing the submissions of the learned counsels for both the parties, on perusal of the material placed on record and on perusal of the impugned Order dated 24.06.2020 on I.A. No.2 under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S. No.7690/2016 passed by the LXXV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, it appears that the trial Court has passed well - 10 - reasoned Order and no need to intervene in the impugned Order. 13. The writ petitioner fails to substantiate his contentions and there is no perversity or erroneousness in the Order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE BNV Ct-MS