- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41696 WP No. 15568 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 15568 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. P.R.KUMAR S/O. LATE RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.243, 1ST MAIN 7TH CROSS, B M SHREE NAGARA METAGALLI MYSURU - 560 016 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAKASHA H.C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. P.R. NANDISH S/O RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS. NO.MIG 34, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN, SHARADADEVI NAGARA. MYSURU - 570 022 2. P R JAGADISH, S/O. RAMANNA P M. AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, NO. 117, 2ND CROSS GOKULAM, 2ND STAGE, MYSURU - 500 002. 3. P.R.PARAMESH, S/O RAMANNA, Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41696 WP No. 15568 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, NO.465, 2ND MAIN, 11TH CROSS, B.M.SHREE NAGARA, METAGALLI, MYSURU - 560 016. 4. BHAVYA, W/O M.P. MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, NO.983, 5TH CROSS, JANATHANAGARA, MYSURU - 560 001 5. V. CHANDRU, S/O VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. 6. V.NAGARAJU, S/O VENAKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R5 AND R6 ARE R/AT ABBUR ROAD, NEAR HOSTEL, PERIYAPATTNA TOWN, KASABA HOBLI, PERIYAPATTNA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 107 7. K.M.GEETHA KUMARI, W/O KALAPPA P.K., AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.225, EMPLOYEES LAYOUT, HUNSEKUPPE ROAD, PERIYAPATTNA TOWN, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 107 8. V.K.KAVERI, W/O KRISHNA T.K. AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41696 WP No. 15568 of 2025 R/O RAVANDUR VILLAGE, PERIYAPATTNA TOWN, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 107. 9. K.R. RAVI, S/O M.L. RAJU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.150, KOODUMANGALURU VILLAGE, KUSHAL NAGARA HOBLI, SOMAWARAPETE TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 236 …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-C DATED 14-11-2024 PASSED IN O.S.30/2019 BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC. AT PERIYAPATTANA DISMISSING THE APPLICATION, IA NO.9 FILED BY PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10 CPC FOR IMPLEADING PROPOSED DEFENDANTS ALLOW LA NO.9 BY ISSUE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORAN OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION AS THE CASE MAY BE ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41696 WP No. 15568 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This Court does not find the need or necessity to issue notice to respondents. 3. Petitioner is none other than the plaintiff. He instituted the suit for partition and separate possession against the defendants before the trial Court. 4. Pursuant to the statement being filed, petitioner/plaintiff filed an application, IA No.9, to implead proposed 47 defendants as they are subsequent purchasers. He had taken steps for some of them. Due to non taking of steps to the defendant Nos.13, 14, 23 and 32, the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for impleadment before the trial Court came to be dismissed and the matter was posted for cross-examination of PW1. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41696 WP No. 15568 of 2025 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he has taken out notice to the other proposed defendants. But for these defendants i.e., defendant Nos.13, 14, 23 and 32, he was unable to be present on that particular day to take steps and hence the Court ought not to have dismissed the entire application except for those who had not been served or taken steps. Nevertheless, the trial Court has dismissed the application in toto and posted the matter for cross-examination of PW1. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the proposed defendants namely defendant Nos. 13, 14, 23 and 32 are subsequent purchasers who have purchased the suit property after the filing of the suit. So they would be proper and necessary parties. The delay in taking the steps to these respondents /Defendants may be condoned and hence, he is before this Court in this petition questioning the said order dismissing IA.No.9 which was filed before the trial Court. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41696 WP No. 15568 of 2025 7. Apparently it is seen that the petitioner has taken out steps to the other proposed defendants in the said application IA No.9. But for these four proposed defendants, namely D13, D14, 33 and 32, steps were not taken due to unforeseen circumstances. Under the circumstances, he seeks to allow this petition seeking 15 days time do the needful to take steps. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that the trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the application itself in toto rather than the case as against defendant Nos.13, 14, 23 and 32 for not having taken steps whereas others are being served and represented in accordance with law. 9. Under the circumstances, there is a good ground made out by learned counsel for the petitioner to allow this petition by imposing certain conditions. Accordingly, I pass the following order. ORDER The petition is allowed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41696 WP No. 15568 of 2025 2. The order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, dismissing IA.No.9 is hereby set aside. 3. Petitioner/plaintiff is granted 10 days' time to take steps with regard to defendant Nos. 13, 14, 23 and 32. If steps are not taken within 10 days i.e., from 28.10.2025, the trial Court shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. 4. Ordered accordingly. 5. However, the petitioner is saddled with cost of Rs.2,500/-, which is a condition precedent to proceed further in the case. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE RCK,List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3