- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26339 W.P. No.13683/2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.13683/2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. D. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O G.B. DYAMANNA PRESENTLY R/AT. 'SUKRATHA' DOOR NO.11, IST MAIN, 'A' BLOCK TARALABALU NAGARA CHITRADURGA -577 501. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMA BHAT K, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. D. BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O G.B. DYAMANNA R/AT 3RD CROSS, GCR EXTENSION BASAVA NILAYA CHITRADURGA -577 501. 2. SMT. RAJINI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS W/O SRI. PRABHU R/AT. SONNATHAMANA HALLI @ THAMBUCHETTIPALYA K R PURAM HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK. 3. SRI. GOPALA KRISHNAN .M AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O LATE C.N. MANICKAM NO.2074, CHALUVAIAH ROAD CHANDRASHEKAR NAGAR Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26339 W.P. No.13683/2020 RAMAMURTHY NAGAR BENGALURU-560 016. 4. SRI. K.N. SRINIVAS ALIAS RAJU AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O LATE K.P. NARAYANAPPA NO.75, NEW BAZAAR STREET KRISHNARAJAPURAM HOBLI BENGALURU-560 036. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAMA MOORTHY B.V. ADV., FOR R1 [ABSENT] SRI. BHARATH S, ADV., FOR SRI. P.B. RAJU, ADV., FOR R4 V/O/DTD:01.04.2025 NOTICE TO R2 & R3 ARE D/W) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND THEREBY SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD.29.9.2020 ON IA NO.9 IN O.S.NO.1118/2009 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SECOND ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, BENGAULRU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, AS PER ANENXUR-A AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE HON'BLE TRIAL COURT TO IMPLEAD THE PETITIONER AS NECESSARY PARTY TO THE SUIT, BY ALLOWING THE IA NO.9 IN O.S.NO.1118/2009 & 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26339 W.P. No.13683/2020 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking following reliefs: "i) Issue writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and thereby set-aside the Order dated 29-09-2020 on I.A.No.9 in O.S.No.1118/2009 passed by the Hon'ble Second Addl. Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru as per Annexure-A and consequently direct the Hon'ble Trial Court to implead the Petitioner as necessary party to the suit, by allowing the IA.No.9 in OS.No.1118/2009." 2. Sri.Rama Bhat K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1, brother of the petitioner filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction by suppressing the fact that there is a partition between the petitioner and his brother i.e., respondent No.1/plaintiff. The said suit itself is not maintainable and the said fact that filing of the suit came to the knowledge of the petitioner at a later stage. Hence, he filed an application for impleadment which came to be rejected by the trial Court by recording the finding that the plaintiff had opposed the said application and also that the application was filed when the matter was posted for arguments. It is submitted that the petitioner is seeking to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26339 W.P. No.13683/2020 implead himself as a plaintiff in the suit and to strike out respondent No.1 as a plaintiff from the suit. It is submitted that the subject matter of the suit property was allotted to the share of the petitioner under the registered partition deed dated 19.08.2009; hence, the petitioner is necessary party and should be arrayed as a plaintiff. In alternate, he submits that if this Court is not inclined to consider the prayer to implead the petitioner as a plaintiff, then permit him to come on record as a defendant so that he can raise the counterclaim in the pending suit. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. There is no representation for respondent No.1/plaintiff. 4. Per contra Sri.Bharath S., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.P.B.Raju, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that he is one of the defendants in the suit and has no grievance with regard to the present dispute. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26339 W.P. No.13683/2020 5. I have heard the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced. 6. The pleading and material available on record indicate that respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.1118/2009 for relief of declaration and permanent injunction against respondent Nos.2 to 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the subject matter of the suit is part and parcel of Site No.67, ITI Notified area, katha No.101/2/8/9/1/67, situated at Sonnathammana halli, K.R. Puram Hobli, ITI Notified area, Bangalore South Taluk and the said property had fallen to the share of the petitioner under the registered partition deed dated 19.08.2009 entered between the petitioner and respondent No.1/plaintiff and the said document is available on record at Annexure-'C'. The aforesaid registered partition deed supports the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26339 W.P. No.13683/2020 assertion made by the petitioner in the present petition as well as the application. However, I am of the considered view that the petitioner cannot be arrayed as a plaintiff by striking out the existing plaintiff from the suit. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has acquired the substantive right over the suit schedule property by way of registered partition deed. Hence, the petitioner is a proper as well as a necessary party to the suit. If any decree passed in the aforesaid suit without his presence, the interest of the petitioner would be in jeopardy. Hence, it would be appropriate to allow the application filed by the petitioner in IA.No.9 under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC) by permitting the petitioner to come on record as defendant No.4 in OS.No.1118/2009. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26339 W.P. No.13683/2020 ii) The impugned order dated 29.09.2020 passed on IA.No.9 in OS.No.1118/2009 by the II Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru is hereby set aside. iii) Consequently, IA.No.9 filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 of CPC is allowed permitting the petitioner to come on record as defendant No.4 in OS.No.1118/2009. No orders as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35