- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42500 WP No. 23765 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 23765 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. CHINNAMMA W/O LATE RAMAIAH D/O VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. 2. SHRI MANJUNATH S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. BOTH RESIDING AT SUVARNA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK - 562 106. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI S.Y. KUMBAR, ADV.,) AND: 1. SHRI CHINNAPPA S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS. 2. SMT. C. MAMATHA D/O CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. BOTH RESIDING AT SUNUVARA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK - 562 106. 3. SMT. BYRAMMA W/O SHRI CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT SUNUVARA VILLAGE Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42500 WP No. 23765 of 2023 KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562 106. 4. SHRI V.V. NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT VANAKANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 106. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INIDA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 20.03.2023, VIDE ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC ANEKAL ON I.A.NO.9 U/O 1 R.10(2) OF CPC FILED IN O.S.337/2016 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAME. 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 Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by plaintiff nos.1 and 2 with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 20.03.2023 passed on I.A.No.IX filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC in O.S.No.337/2016 by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42500 WP No. 23765 of 2023 3. The petitioners herein had filed O.S.No.337/2016 before the jurisdictional civil Court against respondents herein seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule 'A' and 'B' property. In the said suit, respondent no.2 / defendant no.2 has filed a detailed written statement denying the suit claim. It appears that in the said suit, the plaintiffs had filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC with a prayer to restrain defendant nos.1 and 2 from alienating the suit schedule property, during the pendency of the suit. The prayer made in the said application was granted. Alleging that, in violation of order of temporary injunction, defendant nos.1 and 2 have executed a sale agreement in favour of defendant nos.3 and 4 who are respondent nos.3 and 4 in this writ petition, an application was filed before the Trial Court under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC by the petitioners herein to implead respondent nos.3 and 4 herein in the suit as party defendant nos.3 and 4. The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs by filing objection. The Trial Court vide the order impugned has rejected the application. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners / plaintiffs are before this Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42500 WP No. 23765 of 2023 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that since an agreement for sale has been executed in favour of respondent nos.3 and 4 herein, they are necessary parties to the suit. 5. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that, suit is filed against defendant nos.1 and 2 / respondent nos.1 and 2 herein seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. It appears that, on the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs an order of temporary injunction is passed against defendant nos.1 and 2 by the Trial Court restraining them from alienating the suit schedule property. I.A.No.IX is now filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC by the plaintiffs alleging that in violation of the said interim order, defendant nos.1 and 2 have executed an agreement for sale in favour of proposed defendants, who are respondent nos.3 and 4 herein and therefore they are necessary parties to the suit. Undisputedly, defendant nos.1 and 2 have executed only an agreement for sale and no registered sale deed has been executed in favour of proposed defendants as on this date. If - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42500 WP No. 23765 of 2023 defendant nos.1 and 2 have violated interim order of temporary injunction, it is for the plaintiffs to proceed against them in accordance with law for having violated the order of temporary injunction by filing necessary application before the Trial Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners at this stage has submitted that the petitioners have already filed an application before the Trial Court against defendant nos.1 and 2 for having violated the order of temporary injunction. If that is so, it is for the petitioners to prosecute the said application and take the same to a logical end. Insofar as the order which is impugned in this petition is concerned, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the said order wherein the prayer made by the petitioners to implead proposed defendants in whose favour defendant nos.1 and 2 have allegedly executed a agreement for sale has been rejected. 7. It is needless to state that since the order of temporary injunction is operating in O.S.No.337/2016 against defendant nos.1 and 2 restraining them from alienating suit schedule property, any transaction made by them in respect of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42500 WP No. 23765 of 2023 suit schedule property will be subject to the outcome of the suit in O.S.No.337/2016. 8. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27