- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53941 WP No. 11590 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 11590 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI RAMAIAH @ C RAMU S/O LATE CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.24 MANJUNATHA LAYOUT 1ST CROSS, MANGAMMANA PALYA NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE YELLUKUNTE (HSR LAYOUT 7TH SECTOR BENGALURU 560 068. REPRESENTED BY ITS GPA HOLDER SRI R. MANUNATH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS S/O RAMU C RAMAIAH RESDIING AT NO.24 MANJUNATHA LAYOUT 1ST CROSS, MANGAMMANA PALYA YELLUKUNTE(HSR LAYOUT 7TH SECTOR) BENGALURU 560 068. …PETITIONER (BY SRI BHADRINATH R, ADV.) AND: 1. SRI ASHOKA C S/O ALTE CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT C/O RAMAIAH S/O LATE VENKATEPPA (EX-G.P.MEMBER) HALASAHALLI, GUNJUR POST SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU - 560 087. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53941 WP No. 11590 of 2023 2. THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD BENGALURU 560 020. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD BENGALURU 560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MURUGESH V CHARATI, ADV., FOR R-2 & R-3; R-1 SERVED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 18.04.2023 BY EXERCISING SUO-MOTU POWER UNDER ORDER I RULE 10 OF THE CPC IN OS NO. 25846/2018 PASSED BY THE XIII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT BENGALURU AS FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Plaintiff is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set aside the order dated 18.04.2023 passed in O.S.No.25846/2018 by the Court of XIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53941 WP No. 11590 of 2023 3. Petitioner herein has filed suit in O.S.No.25846/2018 before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Bengaluru, seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant nos.2 & 3 viz., Commissioner and the Special Land Acquisition Officer of Bengaluru Development Authority (for short, 'BDA') from allotting sites in the name of defendant no.1, without deciding the objections of the plaintiff. 4. In the said suit, the Trial Court has suo motu passed the impugned orders directing the plaintiff to implead his siblings as defendants in the suit. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff is before this Court. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits that the suit is filed seeking permanent injunction restraining defendant nos.2 & 3 from allotting sites to defendant no.1 alone without deciding the objections of the plaintiff. The title of the parties is not being adjudicated in the present suit. Therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in passing the impugned order. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53941 WP No. 11590 of 2023 6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents has argued in support of the impugned order. 7. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that in the plaint in O.S.No.25846/2018, it is averred that the property belonging to the father of the plaintiff and defendant no.1 was acquired by the BDA and towards compensation of the lands acquired, in addition to payment of money as per the scheme of the BDA, land loosers are given incentive sites. Plaintiff apprehends that defendant no.1 who is his eldest brother, is likely to claim the said incentive sites for himself, and it is under these circumstances, plaintiff has approached the Civil Court with a prayer to restrain defendant nos.2 & 3 from allotting sites to defendant no.1 without deciding the objections of the petitioner. 8. For the purpose of adjudicating the dispute involved in the present case, the presence of other siblings of the plaintiff is not necessary. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the substantive rights of the plaintiff, defendant no.1 and their siblings is not being decided in the present suit. The present suit is only a suit simplication seeking - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53941 WP No. 11590 of 2023 permanent injunction restraining defendant no.1 from claiming incentive sites for himself. The Trial Court was, therefore, not justified in passing the order impugned directing the plaintiff to implead all his siblings as defendants in the present suit. The plaintiff has not prayed for any relief, other than the relief of permanent injunction as aforesaid in the present suit. Under the circumstances, the order impugned cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following order: 9. Writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.04.2023 passed in O.S.No.25846/2018 by the Court of XIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru, is set aside. 10. Since the suit is of the year 2018, the Trial Court is requested to expedite the trial in the suit and dispose of the suit at the earliest. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK