- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26265 WP No. 4933 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 4933 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. EKANTHAPPA S/O LATE KARIBASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O CHAMENAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA - 577416. 2. BASAVARAPPA S/O LATE KARIBASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O DEVABALU VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 416. 3. SHIVARAJ S/O LATE PAKEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O CHAMENAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 416. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRASAD B S., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26265 WP No. 4933 of 2021 AND: 1. SMT. OMKARAMMA D/O LATE KARIYAPPA, W/O BALACHANDRAPPA N.D , AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O TILAK ROAD, NYAMATHI, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE - 577 217. 2. B. BASAVAYNAPPA S/O BUDAPPA @ THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O CHAMENAHALI, KUMSIHOBLI, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 423. 3. B. THOTAPPA S/O KARIBASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O CHAMENAHALLI, BALEKOPPA POST, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 426. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. VINITA J.D., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H. DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R3 SERVED - UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.14.12.2020 IN O.S.NO.93/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL SR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM SHIVAMOGGA AS FOUND AT ANENXURE-J. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26265 WP No. 4933 of 2021 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court calling in question an order dated 14.12.2020 passed in O.S.No.93/2018 rejecting an application filed by the petitioners under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the CPC' for short) seeking to implead them as a defendants in a suit for partition. 2. Heard Shri Prasad B.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Vinita J.D., learned counsel for Shri H. Devendrappa, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. 3. Respondent No.1 is the plaintiff, institutes a suit in O.S.No.93/2018 seeking a decree of partition and separate possession and arriving several defendants. The petitioners are said to be one of the brother of the family member, who are not impleaded into these proceedings. Therefore, they comes - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26265 WP No. 4933 of 2021 up with an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC seeking their impleadment. The said impleading application is rejected on the objection filed by the plaintiff on the score that they have not produced any document to demonstrate that they are the members of the family and therefore, the petitioners are before this Court. 4. Shri Prasad B.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are the family members. Their brother is made a party to the proceedings, but they are not and also would take this Court through an earlier suit filed by the very plaintiff, in which the petitioners are defendants, and the suit comes to be withdrawn. Therefore, would submit that the petitioners are a proper and necessary parties to the proceedings, which seek partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. 5. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would put up vehement opposition, but would not dispute the position that the earlier suit did contain the present petitioners as a party defendants in the aforesaid suit and would further - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26265 WP No. 4933 of 2021 admit that the brother of the petitioners is already a defendants in the subject suit. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material available on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. Defendant No.1 had instituted a suit in O.S.No.18/2017 in which the present petitioners would arrive as a defendants. This is a matter of record. The said suit comes to be withdrawn by defendant No.1 and comes the subject suit by the plaintiff. The plaintiff arrays the brother of the petitioners as a defendant, but not the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners had preferred an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC. The said application on the aforesaid facts, on the face of it ought to have been allowed by the concerned Court. The concerned Court has erroneously rejected the application filed by the petitioners, which has led to the petitioners to this Court and, the petition languishing for last five years before this Court. Therefore, the petition deserves to succeed and the application filed by the petitioners deserves to be allowed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26265 WP No. 4933 of 2021 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i) Writ Petition is allowed. ii) The order dated 14.12.2020 in O.S.No.93/2018 stands quashed. iii) The application filed by the petitioners under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC stands allowed. iv) Respondent No.1 - plaintiff is directed to amend the cause title before the concerned Court. v) The concerned Court is directed to regulate its procedure and expeditiously conclude the suit as it is of the year 2018. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3