- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43862 WP No. 12039 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 12039 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI T. PUTTASWAMY S/O LATE CHIKKATHIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS RTD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR R/AT NO.2, SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA NILAYA, JALAVAHINI BEHIND ASHWINI KALYANA MANTAP MANADVADI ROAD MYSURU - 570 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PREREET JAIN, ADV., FOR SRI P. MAHESHA, ADV.) AND: 1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA SINCE DEAD REP. BY HER LRS (R1-3) SRI KRISHNAMSWAMY S/O LATE LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT MAJOR R/AT D.NO.672, 3RD A MAIN 4TH CROSS, 4TH STAGE 1ST PHASE, VIJAYANAGAR MYSURU - 570 017. 2. SRI ESWARA S/O LATE LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT MAJOR R/AT D.NO.1561/A 6TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN R.P.C LAYOUT, HAMPI NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 040. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43862 WP No. 12039 of 2022 3. SRI RAJENDRA PRASAD.J S/O LATE LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT MAJOR R/AT D.NO.2, 3RD CROSS 4TH MAIN, VINAYAKA NAGAR MYSURU - 570 012. 4. SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS D/O LATE CHIKKATHIMMAIAH W/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY R/AT D.NO.1636/1 8TH CROSS, ASHOKAPURAM MYSURU - 570 008. 5. SMT. PUTTALAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS D/O LATE CHIKATHIMMAIAH W/O SIDDAIAH R/AT D.NO. 111, KERAGALLI JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYURU - 570 008. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIVEK B.N, ADV., FOR SRI ABHINAV R, ADV., FOR R-1 & R-5; SRI DINESH C.R, ADV., FOR R-R-3 & R-4; R-2 SERVED - UNREPRESENTED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU IN FDP.NO.121/2011 DTD 27.07.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-EGRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS IN FDP NO.121/2011 PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU PENDING DISPOSAL OF ABOVE PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43862 WP No. 12039 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 27.07.2021 passed in FDP No. 121/2011 by the Court of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mysuru. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The respondents herein who are decree holders in O.S.No.1020/2005, which was filed seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property, have initiated final decree proceedings in FDP.No.121/2011 before the Court of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mysuru. In the said proceedings, petitioner herein is the respondent. He had filed IA.no.6 under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC with a prayer to implead the Commissioner of Mysuru Urban Development Authority, Mysuru, as party respondent in FDP.No.121/2011. The said application was opposed by the respondents herein by filing objections. The Trial Court vide the order impugned, has rejected the said application with costs. and being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43862 WP No. 12039 of 2022 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits, that certain portion of the suit schedule property in O.S.No.1020/2005, in which a preliminary decree is passed for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property, has been acquired and utilized by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority for the purpose of formation of a road.. The Court Commissioner appointed in the FDP proceedings has stated that for the purpose of conducting survey of the suit schedule property, presence of the officers of MUDA is required. It is under these circumstances, the Application - IA no.6 was filed. The Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the said application. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, has opposed the prayer made in the petition. He submits that the proposed respondent is not a necessary or proper party to the proceedings. For the purpose of assisting the Court Commissioner to conduct the survey, the Commissioner of MUDA is not required to be arrayed as a party respondent to the proceedings. Therefore, the Trial Court was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43862 WP No. 12039 of 2022 fully justified in rejecting the application. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 6. O.S.No.1020/2005 was filed by the respondents herein seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property, and undisputedly, a preliminary decree is drawn in the said suit. Thereafter, final decree proceedings in FDP.No.121/2011 is initiated by the decree holders in O.S.No.1020/2005 as provided under Order XXI Rule 18 of CPC. It is trite that final decree proceedings is continuation of the suit and a suit for partition and separate possession comes to an end on the date of final decree is drawn. IA no.6 is filed by the petitioner herein who is the judgment debtor in O.S.No.1020/2005 with a prayer to implead the Commissioner of MUDA as party respondent in the final decree proceedings. 7. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, certain portion of the suit schedule property has been acquired for the purpose of MUDA and already road has been formed in the said property, and therefore, presence of the proposed defendant is necessary for the purpose of proper adjudication of the dispute involved in the final decree proceedings. He has - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43862 WP No. 12039 of 2022 also referred to a report of the surveyor who was appointed as a Court Commissioner in the final decree. In the said report, it is stated that assistance of the Officers of MUDA would be required for the purpose of surveying the suit schedule property as MUDA is in occupation and possession of a portion of the suit schedule property. For the purpose of assisting the surveyor, the proposed defendant is not required to be arrayed as party respondent in the final decree proceedings. The said relief can be sought by filing an appropriate application before the Court, in which event, the Court is bound to consider such application and pass appropriate orders that may be necessary for the purpose of effectively surveying the suit schedule properties. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner to implead the Commissioner of MUDA as party respondent in the final decree proceedings. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK