- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43938 WP No. 9323 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9323 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI RAJESHKUMAR SON OF SAMPATH RAJ AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO. 64, 3RD CROSS SRIRAMPURAM BANGALORE 560 021. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. VASUNDARA T. P., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SIDDAMALLAPPA P M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI M C CHANNAPPA SON OF LATE MUNISHAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT MARAPPANAPALYA VILLAGE DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK PIN CODE 562 123. 2. SRI M . SUDARSHAN SON OF LATE MUNISHAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT MARAPPANAPALYA VILLAGE DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK PIN CODE 562 123. 3. SMT. NAGARATHNA WIFE OF LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA D/O LATE MUNISHAMAIAH Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court Of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43938 WP No. 9323 of 2021 AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT BOLAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE DASANAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK PIN CODE 562 123. 4. SMT. M. MANJULA WIFE OF LATE KRISHNAPPA D/O LATE MUNISHAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT DODDAPPAIAH LAYOUT NAGASHETTIHALLI BANGLAORE 560 094. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S HIMA KIRAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRAKASH T. HEBBAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.06.2020, PASSED IN R.A NO.89/2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND THEREBY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FOR IMPLEADING UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs: (1) Issue writ of certiorari and to set aside the order dated 17.06.2020, passed in R.A.No.89/2015, passed by the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43938 WP No. 9323 of 2021 as per Annexure-E and thereby allow the application for impleading under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. (2) Pass suitable order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court deems it appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case by allowing the above writ petition with exemplary cost in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Smt.Vasundara T.P., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance against the respondents which came to be dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a regular first appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed in the suit and during the pendency of the appeal, the respondents executed a relinquishment deed dated 06.04.2016 in favour of other family members. Hence, the petitioner filed an application to implead the persons who acquired a right under the relinquishment deed. However, the Appellate Court rejected the said application solely on the ground that the application is filed at the belated stage and the decree can be passed in the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43938 WP No. 9323 of 2021 absence of the proposed respondents. It is submitted that the proposed respondents acquired the right under the relinquishment deed dated 06.04.2016 and hence, they are the necessary and proper parties to adjudicate the appeal filed by the petitioner. 3. Per contra, Sri.S.Hima Kiran, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order of the Appellate Court and submits that the relinquishment deed is executed after the dismissal of the suit and the transaction alleged by the petitioner is mainly a money transaction. It is submitted that any decree passed pursuant to the appeal filed by the petitioner would bind the respondents. Hence, the proposed respondents are neither necessary nor property parties to the suit. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43938 WP No. 9323 of 2021 available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both the sides. 5. The petitioner had filed O.S.No.356/2009 for the relief of specific performance of the agreement dated 10.04.1996. The said suit came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed R.A.No.89/2015 which is pending on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. In the said appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC') seeking to implead the respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein as parties which came to be rejected by the Appellate Court under the impugned order. A perusal of the application filed by the petitioner indicates that during the pendency of the appeal, the respondent No.1 relinquished the right in respect of the subject matter of the suit in favour of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 and when the subject matter of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43938 WP No. 9323 of 2021 suit is transferred, a right has been created in favour of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in respect of the same. In my considered view, the respondent Nos.2 to 4 are the necessary and proper parties to adjudicate the appeal pending before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court rejected the application solely on the ground that the application is filed at the belated stage and the appeal can be disposed of in the absence of the proposed respondents. The proposed respondents are the owners of the property against which specific performance of the agreement is sought by the petitioner. In view of the same, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.06.2020 passed in R.A.No.89/2015 by the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, is set aside. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43938 WP No. 9323 of 2021 Consequently, I.A.No.3 filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the CPC is allowed. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14