- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47063 WP No. 25891 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 25891 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SIDDAMMA W/O ERAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS. 2. UMESHA S/O ERAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. 3. VASANTHA S/O ERAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. 4. ASHOKA S/O ERAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. PETITIONER NO.1 TO 4 ARE R/O YAGATI VILLAGE DODDAMAGGE HOBLI ARAKALAGUD TALUK HASSAN DIST - 573 102. 5. DHARMAIAH S/O KALAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/O CHIKKA AMBEDKARNAGARA H N PURA TALUK HASSAN DIST - 573 211. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI GIRISH B BALADARE, ADV.) AND: DHARMAIAH @ RAJAIAH S/O KALAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47063 WP No. 25891 of 2023 R/O YAGATI VILLAGE DODDAMAGGE HOBLI ARAKAALGUD TALUK HASSAN DIST - 573 102. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI KUMAR M.D, ADV.) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNEXURE-G THAT THE ORDER DATED 25/10/2023 PASSED IN O.S. NO. 178/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AT ARAKALGUD ON APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 3 RULE 1 AND 2. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by defendants with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 25.10.2023 passed on the application filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order III Rules 1 and 2 of CPC in OS No.178/2012 pending before the Court of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Arakalagudu. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. OS No.178/2012 is filed by respondent herein against the petitioners/defendants seeking the relief of permanent injunction with respect to the suit schedule property. The defendants who have entered appearance in the said suit have - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47063 WP No. 25891 of 2023 filed their written statement opposing the suit claim. Application under Order III Rules 1 and 2 of CPC was filed on behalf of the plaintiff by his son Shivaraju, to permit him to represent the plaintiff in the suit and prosecute the suit. His application was opposed by the contesting defendants by filing objections. The Trial Court vide the order impugned has allowed the application. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants are before this Court. 4. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that prior to filing the present application under Order III Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, similar applications were twice filed on behalf of the plaintiff in OS No.178/2012 and the earlier two applications were rejected by the Trial Court. The second application filed under Order III Rules 1 and 2 of CPC was rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 21.04.2021 with cost of Rs.600/-. The Trial Court while rejecting the second application filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order III Rules 1 and 2 of CPC has observed that principles of res-judicata can be invoked not only in a separate subsequent proceedings, but they also get attracted in subsequent stage of the same proceedings. Once - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47063 WP No. 25891 of 2023 an order made in the course of proceedings become final, it would be binding at the subsequent stage of the proceedings of that proceeding. In spite of such an observation made by the Trial Court, while dismissing similar application filed on behalf of the plaintiff earlier, the Trial Court has allowed the present application filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking similar relief. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the order impugned cannot be sustained. According, the following order:- 5. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 25.10.2023 passed on the application filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order III Rules 1 and 2 of CPC in OS No.178/2012 by the Court of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Arakalagudu, is hereby set-aside and consequently, the application stands dismissed. 6. In view of the disposal of the main petition, pending interlocutory application if any, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the same is disposed off. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33