- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33720 WP No. 5166 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5166 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI GOENKA, W/O LATE SHIVA SHANAKR GOENKA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO. 206, PRESTIGE ACROPOLIS OLYMPUS 3, KORAMANGALA HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 029. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MADHUKAR M DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI N. BHASKAR, S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO. 1291/1292 9TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH CROSS SRINIVASA NAGAR BANASHANKARI III STAGE BANGALORE - 560 085. 2. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE HEAD OFFICE Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33720 WP No. 5166 of 2024 HUDSON CIRCLE N.R. SQUARE BENGALURU - 560 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.M. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. M.R. SINCHANA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.12.2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE XIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-18) IN O.S NO. 1107/2018, (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 (I.A.NO. 9) FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN O.S.NO. 1107/2018 (ANNEXURE-G). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER This petition is against the order dated 12.12.2023 passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.1107/2018 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking to implead the Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike-BBMP as party defendant to the suit. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33720 WP No. 5166 of 2024 2. Present suit is for bare injunction filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 seeking relief of judgment and decree restraining the respondent/defendant from interfering with `B' schedule property which according to the petitioner/plaintiff is a road, by putting up wall and causing impediment to the petitioner/plaintiff in having free ingress and egress. 3. Respondent/defendant on the other hand claims the said schedule property to be his absolute property and not a road as claimed by the petitioner/plaintiff. 4. Petitioner in the circumstances has filed an application under I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC seeking to implead The Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike-BBMP as party respondent/defendant to said suit, which came to be rejected by the trial Court holding that the Commissioner, BBMP is neither necessary nor proper party to the suit. Aggrieved by which the present petition. 5. Heard and perused the records. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33720 WP No. 5166 of 2024 6. Since, the dispute is in respect of `B' Schedule property, which petitioner/plaintiff claims to be a public road while the respondent/defendant claims to be his absolute property, the presence of the Commissioner, BBMP for adjudication of the suit specifically for the relief of bare injunction is of no consequence. Even as admitted by learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff no relief is sought against the BBMP. In that view of the matter rejection of application filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC by the trial Court cannot be found to be irregular or illegal. In the circumstances, reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek such other remedy as may be available under law, petition is disposed of, as the same does not merit consideration. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12