- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54517 WP No. 5853 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.5853 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: M/S IFPL, THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ONE OF ITS BRANCH AT NO. 12 I MAIN, 4TH FLOOR, VIDYARANYAPURA BENGALURU 560 097 REP. BY ITS PARTNER RAMESH N S/O G NARAYANAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT 12, I MAIN, 4TH FLOOR VIDYARANYAPURA BENGALURU 560 097 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHINAY Y T.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K R MOHAN KUMAR S/O RAJU KOPPA VILLAGE, HARANAHALLI HOBLI PERIYAPATNA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT 571 107 2. JANARDAN BT S/O THIMAPPA BR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS BYLAKUPPE VILLAGE BM ROAD, HARANAHALLI HOBLI PERIYAPATTANA TALUK MYSURU 571 107 Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54517 WP No. 5853 of 2025 3. VENKATESH ST S/O LATE SB THIPPAIAH MULSOGE VILLAGE, BASAVESHWARA BLOCK, KUSHALNAGAR HOBLI SOMAVARPETE TALUK KODAGU 571 201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.RITISH R.NAIK., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.T.P. VIVEKANANDAADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3; NOTICE TO R-1 DISPENSED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 18.12.2025) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 18.12.2024 PASSED ON IA NO. 5 IN OS NO. 153/2022 BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PERIYAPATNA (ANNX-D) THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18.12.2024 passed on I.A. No.5 in O.S. No.153/2022 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Periyapatna. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54517 WP No. 5853 of 2025 3. Parties shall be referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. 4. Petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit against respondent No.1/defendant No.1 for the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 8.4.2021 with respect to property bearing Sy.No.22/1 measuring 39 guntas in Sy.No.22/1 of Manchadevanahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Periyapatna taluk, Mysore district. The defendant No.1 appeared before the Court, filed the written statement and in the written statement, he has stated that he has sold the suit schedule property to Respondent Nos.2 and 3 by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 21.1.2022. On coming to know of such a sale deed through the written statement filed by defendant No.1, the plaintiff filed an application - I.A. No.5 to implead the subsequent purchasers as defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the suit. The said application came to be heard on service of notice to the proposed defendant Nos.2 and 3, the learned trial Judge dismissed the application for impleadment only on the ground that the plaintiff has not produced any document to show that the proposed defendants purchased the suit schedule property - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54517 WP No. 5853 of 2025 and so also the original defendant No.1 has not produced any such material. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff vehemently contends that the impugned order is unsustainable as it is contrary to the facts and so also law and the judgments of this Court and the Apex Court. It is contended by learned counsel that the petitioner/plaintiff came to know of the alienation made by Respondent Nos.2 and 3/proposed defendant Nos.2 and 3 as it was stated so by Respondent No.1/defendant No.1 in the written statement, pursuant to which the application came to be filed in I.A. No.5 to implead the proposed defendants as parties to the suit proceedings. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff that the learned trial Judge without going into these aspects of the sale deed and despite noting the age of the sale deed as claimed by the plaintiff, rejected the application solely on the ground that plaintiff has not produced copy of the sale deed. The same is not the correct proposition of law especially in the suit for specific performance. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54517 WP No. 5853 of 2025 6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for respondents fairly submits that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have no objection for petition being allowed and consequently, the application for impleadment being allowed. 7. At this stage, it would be necessary to extract the provisions of Order I Rule 10 of CPC, which read as under: 10. Suit in name of wrong plaintiff— (1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted thought a bona fide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just. (2)Court may strike out or add parties.— The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name, of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54517 WP No. 5853 of 2025 any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. (3)No person shall be added as a plaintiff suing without a next friend or as the next friend of a plaintiff under any disability without his consent. (4)Where defendant added, plaint to be amended —Where a defendant is added, the plaint shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be amended in such manner as may be necessary, and amended copies of the summons and of the plaint shall be served on the new defendant and, if the Court thinks fit, on the original defendant. (5)Subject to the provisions of the [116]Indian Limitation Act, 1877 (15 of 1877), Section 22, the proceedings as against any person added as defendant shall be deemed to have begun only on the service of the summons. 8. It is well settled that in a suit for specific performance, the impleadment of the subsequent purchasers is proper and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54517 WP No. 5853 of 2025 necessary to adjudicate the dispute and decide the real lis between the parties. Further, in a suit for specific performance, where the proposed defendants are proper and necessary parties, they could be permitted to be impleaded in the proceedings. My view is fortified by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kasturi -vs- Iyyamperumal and others reported in (2005)6 SCC 733. 9. In the present case, it is apparently seen that Respondent No.1/defendant No.1 has sold the suit schedule property to Respondent Nos.2 and 3/proposed defendant Nos.2 and 3 through the registered sale deed and therefore, Respondent No.1/defendant no.1 is not contesting the matter after filing of the written statement, as he has no substantial interest anymore in the suit schedule property. Therefore, the proposed defendants are necessary and proper parties to seek the relief. 10. Under the circumstances, I am in agreement with the learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff that the proposed defendant Nos.2 and 3 would be necessary and proper parties in the suit filed for specific performance. This aspect of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54517 WP No. 5853 of 2025 mater has not been dealt with by the learned trial Judge in the proper perspective and has dismissed the application solely on the ground that the plaintiff has not produced the sale deed. 11. In the circumstances, I pass the following: O R D E R i) The petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 18.12.2024 passed on I.A. No.5 in O.S. No.153/2022 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Periyapatna is hereby set aside. iii) Consequently, I.A. No.5 filed under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 of CPC is allowed. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3/proposed defendant Nos.2 and 3 shall be brought on record by the petitioner/plaintiff before the trial Court. iv) The Respondent Nos.2 and 3/proposed defendant Nos.2 and 3 are at liberty to file the written statement and proceed further in the matter. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE] GSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13