- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29204 WP No. 13616 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 13616 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. H.R.NAGARAJ SETTY SON OF LATE S.V.RAMMAIAH SETTY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT LAKSHMIPURA, ARASIKERE TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 103. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHITH HEGGADE.B., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GOPI.P.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. A.B.GURUSIDDESHWARA SON OF LATE SHETTRU BAKKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT HALE PURASABE CIRCLE, HASSAN ROAD, ARASIKERE TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 103. 2. SRI. H.G.VENKATESHBABU SON OF H.V.GOVINDARAJA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT SBT TRADERS, APMC YARD, ARASIKERE TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.L.SREENIVAS., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. B.S.SUDHINDRA., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29204 WP No. 13616 of 2021 THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Mohith Heggade.B., counsel on behalf of Sri.P.M.Gopi., for the petitioner and Sri.K.L.Sreenivas., counsel for respondent No.1 have appeared in person. 2. The order dated 16.08.2018 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Arasikere on I.A.No.6 in O.S.No.279/2018 vide Annexure-F is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 4. The short point that requires consideration is whether the order of the Trial Court requires interference. 5. Suffice it to note that A.B.Gurusiddesha - the plaintiff filed a suit against H.G.Venkateshbabu - the defendant for permanent injunction. After the issuance of the summons, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29204 WP No. 13616 of 2021 the defendant appeared through his counsel and filed a written statement. During the pendency of the suit, the proposed impleading applicant filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC to come on record as defendant No.2 contending that the suit schedule property is a Trust property, hence he is a necessary party. The Trial Court vide order dated 16.08.2018 dismissed the application. The controversy involved in the present writ is with regard to impleading of the applicant as necessary party to the suit proceedings. Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC deals with striking or adding of parties. It is a settled law that plaintiff is dominus litis, has the choice to implead those persons as defendant against whom he vindicates his right. The underlined idea of Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC is whether the presence of an individual is/was necessary to finally determine the rights of parties or not. A person may be added as a party to the suit, provided it is shown that he has a direct interest in the subject matter and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29204 WP No. 13616 of 2021 hence, his presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. In order to come on record as party to the proceedings, the petitioner herein must show that his presence is necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. But the applicant has not substantiated the same. It is needless to say that in a suit relating to property, a person may be added as a party, provided he should have a direct interest as distinguished from commercial interest, in the subject matter of the litigation. But in the instant case, the impleading applicant contends that the suit schedule property is a Trust property and hence, he may be added as defendant No.2. As already noted above, the suit is one for bare injunction and what is required to be considered is whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as of the date of filing of the suit and alleged interference by the defendant. In my view, the impleading applicant has no direct - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29204 WP No. 13616 of 2021 interest in a suit for permanent injunction. Hence, the presence of the impleading applicant is not necessary. 6. The question of addition of parties under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, is generally not one of initial jurisdiction of the Court, but of a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case. In my view, the Trial Court has exercised its power in right perspective. I see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court so as to exercise supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Because of dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory application if any are disposed of. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35