- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45005 WP No. 11143 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 11143 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: NANJUNDAPPA B S/O LATE BEERAPPA AGE ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.20/8 BEERESHWAR NILAYA 4TH CROSS RUDRAPPA GARDEN ASHWATHAKATTE ROAD KASTURIBAI NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 026. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RUDRAPPA P, ADV., FOR SRI VENKATAMUNISETTY K, ADV.) AND: 1. SMT. MANJULA W/O P HEMANTHKUMAR AGE ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.403, VIDYANAGAR NEW EXTENSION MYSORE - 570 011. 2. T.S. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE T.V. SHIVABASAPPA AGE ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT NO.861, 1ST MAIN KENGERI UPANAGARA BENGALURU - 560 060. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.A. PRAKASH, ADV., FOR R-1; V/O/D 12.08.2021, NOTICE TO R-2 IS D.W) Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45005 WP No. 11143 of 2021 THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER ANNEXURE-A, APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 22 RULE 10 CPC ON THE FILE OF THE IIIRD ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE MYSORE CITY MYSORE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 18.03.2019 passed on IA.no.6 in O.S.No.239/2012 by the Court of III Addl. I Civil & JMFC Court, Mysuru. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Respondent no.1 herein has filed O.S.No.239/2012 before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Mysuru, seeking the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. In the said suit, respondent no.2 herein who is the original defendant has filed written statement opposing the suit claim. IA.no.6 is filed under Order XXII Rule 10 of CPC by the petitioner herein with permission to come on record as defendant no.2 in the said suit. The same was opposed by the plaintiff by filing objections. The Trial Court vide the order - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45005 WP No. 11143 of 2021 impugned rejected IA.no.6 and being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits that petitioner has purchased the suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit, and therefore, he is a necessary and proper party to the suit. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and has erred in rejecting the application. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent no.1 submits that the application filed under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC was not at all maintainable. Respondent no.1 has not made any allegation against the petitioner herein in the suit and he has no grievance against the petitioner, and the allegation of interference with the suit schedule property was only as against the vendor of the petitioner. 6. In reply, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no.1 is making attempt to encroach the suit schedule property, and therefore, petitioner is a just and necessary party. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45005 WP No. 11143 of 2021 7. Suit in O.S.No.239/2012 is filed seeking the relief of permanent injunction against respondent no.2 herein, restraining him or anybody claiming under him from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property which is a site measuring 40' x 50' in which a house is constructed. According to the petitioner, during the pendency of the suit, he has purchased the suit schedule property from the respondent no.2 who is the original defendant viz., T.S.Chandrashekhar, and it is under these circumstances, he had filed an application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC seeking permission of the Court to come on record as defendant no.2. 8. Learned Counsel for respondent no.1/plaintiff has stated that plaintiff has not made any allegation of interference in respect of the suit schedule property by the petitioner herein, and therefore, he cannot be said to be a necessary party to the suit. 9. I find force in the said contention urged on behalf of respondent no.1. If it is the case of the petitioner that the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45005 WP No. 11143 of 2021 plaintiff has been interfering with the property which he has purchased from the original defendant in the suit viz., T.S.Chandrashekhar, then it is for the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings before the proper forum to protect his right over the property which he has purchased from the original defendant in the present suit. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was justified in rejecting IA.no.6. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK