- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32378 WP No. 34244 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 34244 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI MURALI M V S/O M.S. VENKATARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.1494, 17TH 'A' MAIN JP NAGAR, 2ND PHASE, BANGALORE-560 078. 2. SRI DEEPAK SHANTI KUDACHI S/O SHANTINATH KUDACHI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.420, 9TH MAIN ROAD, 15TH ‘A’ CROSS, AECS LAYOUT, A BLOCK, KUDLU, BANGALORE-560 068. 3. SRI PUTTARAJU M S/O T.P. MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.B 112, SAHASRA GRAND APARTMENT, BEHIND ROYAL CONCORDE, INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, CHELEKERE, BANGALORE-560 043. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32378 WP No. 34244 of 2024 4. SMT. NIRUPAMA ANANDKUMAR W/O M.C. ANANDKUMAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.16, FLAT NO.401, 4TH FLOOR, RISHIT SAI NILAYAM, 2ND MAIN, 2ND PHASE, JCR LAYOUT PANATHUR MAIN, BANGALORE-560 103. 5. SIMI TERESA ALBERT C/O T.A. BIJI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.1639, 6TH MAIN, E BLOCK, NEAR BROOKFIELDS, AECS LAYOUT, KUNDALAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 037 CURRENTLY IN USA THROUGH GPA HOLDER MR. BIJUJOZE, S/O. MR. PHILIP ALBERT. 6. SRI SASI KUMAR ADMOOLAM RAMALINGAM S/O LATE M.A. RAMALINGAM, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.3, 14TH MAIN, SHUBH ENCLAVE, ICICI BANK, HARLUR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 102. 7. SMT. S. VYSHALI W/O. SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR P AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT. NO.155, 1ST MAIN, 4TH CROSS, DEVARAJ URS NAGAR, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32378 WP No. 34244 of 2024 MYSORE ROAD BANGALORE-560 026 THROUGH GPA HOLDER S. SHIVALINGAM S/O. LATE. C.V. SUBRAMANYAM 8. SRI V. THYAGARAJAN S/O. LATE. S. VEBNKATA KRISHNAN AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/AT. NO.17, 3RD FLOOR, FLAT 5, 14TH MAIN, SHUBH ENCLAVE, WATRAP HOUSE, PRITHVI AVENUE ABHIRAMPURAM, CHENNAI-600 108. 9. SMT. K. RADHA W/O. SHANKARANARAYANAN T AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.41, PRIYANIVAS, 10TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS, BEHIND MEDI HOPE HOSPITAL, MARUTHI NAGAR, MALLESHPALYA, NEW THIPPASANDRA, BENGALURU-560 075. 10. SRI. PRADEEP THAZHATHETHIL S/O. SHANKARANARAYANAN T AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT. NO.41, PRIYANIVAS, 10TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS, BEHIND MEDI HOPE HOSPITAL, MARUTHI NAGAR, MALLESHPALYA, NEW THIPPASANDRA, BANGALORE-560 075. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32378 WP No. 34244 of 2024 11. MS. PRIYA T D/O. SHANKARANARAYANAN T AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT. NO.41, PRIYANIVAS, 10TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS, BEHIND MEDI HOPE HOSPITAL, MARUTHI NAGAR MALLESHPALYA, NEW THIPPASANDRA BENGALURU-560 075. 12. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA G C W/O. DURGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT. NO.31, 4TH CROSS, YELACHENAHALLI, OPP: SUPREME OVERSEAS, J.P. NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 078. 13. SMT. G. SHAKUNTALA MANJUNATH W/O. MANJUNATH H.S. AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT. NO.34, 3RD CROSS, JAYANAGAR 4TH BLOCK BANGALORE-560 041 THROUGH GPA HOLDER MANJUNATHA H S S/O. BHARAMAPPA. 14. SRI BADARI NARAYANA GUPTHA S/O. RAMACHANDRAIAH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT. NO.950, 3RD CROSS, 6TH MAIN, CHOWDESHARI LAYOUT, MARATHAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 037. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32378 WP No. 34244 of 2024 15. SRI. SYED AHMED S/O. SYED ABDUL KAREEM AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT. NO.20/4, 5TH CROSS, GANGONDANAHALLI, NAYANDANAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 039. 16. SRI. GOPPINATH E S/O. EATHURAJ AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT. NO.83/104, KRISHNA REDDY LAYOUT, DODDANEKKUNDI, MARATHAHALLI COLONY BANGALORE-560 037. 17. SRI. S.R. ANANDA RAO S/O. M.V. RANGANNA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/AT. NO.1041, 50 FEET ROAD, OPP. BDA PARK, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT BANGALORE SOUTH-560 039. 18. SMT. K.M. CHANDRAKALA W/O. LATE. D. KRISHNAMURTHY RAO PAVAR AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT. NO.41, 1ST CROSS, H.M. NAYAKA ROAD, LAKSHMIPURA, BANGALORE-560 039. 19. SRI. B.S. SUMAN GANESH S/O. B.K. SRINATH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32378 WP No. 34244 of 2024 R/AT. NO.283, 2ND FLOOR, 10TH MAIN, NEAR CITI BANK, JAYANAGAR, III BLOCK, BANGALORE-560 011. 20. SRI. M. PAPANNA S/O. MARISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/AT MARISWAMAPPA, NO.13/3, DOOPANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, NEAR NEW HORIZON SCHOOL, DOOPANAHALLI, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 008. 21. SRI. S. DEEPAK KAUSHIK S/O. M. SHANKARAN AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT. NO.328 MICO LAYOUT 8TH MAIN, BTM 2ND STAGE BANGALORE-560 076. 22. SRI. A.P. PRABHAKARA S/O. PARAMESWARAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.19-5/1, 3RD MAIN ROAD, HAMPINAGARA, VIJAYANAGARA 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560 040. 23. SRI. B. NATARAJ S/O. LATE. D. BASAPPA SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS SMT. G CHITRA W/O LATE B NATARAJ - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32378 WP No. 34244 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 24. MS. N. NIVEDHA D/O LATE B. NATARAJ AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 25. MS. N . SUCHITA D/O LATE B NATARAJ AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS PETITIONERS NO.23(A) TO 23(C) RESIDING AT NO.67 5TH CROSS NEAR MAHESHWARAMMA TEMPLE SARASWATHI NAGARA MAHADEVPURA BENGALURU-560 048. 26. SRI. B.S. MANI S/O. M. BALASUNDARAM AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT. NO.708, 1ST MAIN, C BLOCK, AECS LAYOUT, KUNDALAHALLI, MARATHALLI COLONY, BANGALORE-560 037. 27. SRI. MURUGESHAN S/O. MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/AT NO.G-1282, 8TH CROSS, HERITAGE CENTRE, HAL COLONY, NEW TOWNSHIP, MARATHALLI COLONY, BANGALORE-560 037. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32378 WP No. 34244 of 2024 28. SMT. DHARMAMBHA BV D/O. B.S. VENKATACHALAPATHY AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT. NO.73/4, 2ND FLOOR, 6TH MAIN, KALYANI NAGAR, VASANTHAPURA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 061. 29. SMT. LAKSHMI W/O. LATE. S EKAMBARAM AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT. NO.51, 2ND ROSS, BALAJI LAYOUT, BANASWADI MAIN ROAD, NEAR RAGHAVENDRA TEMPLE, BANGALORE-560 043. 30. SRI. ARUL SELVAN E S/O. LATE. S EKAMBARAM AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT. NO.51, 2ND CROSS, BALAJI LAYOUT, BANASWADI MAIN ROAD, NEAR RAGHAVENDRA TEMPLE, BANGALORE-560 043. 31. SRI. KURAI MANI E S/O. LATE. S EKAMBARAM AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT. NO.51, 2ND CROSS, BALAJI LAYOUT, BANASWADI MAIN ROAD, NEAR RAGHAVENDRA TEMPLE, BANGALORE-560 043. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32378 WP No. 34244 of 2024 32. SRI. K.S. SESHACHANDRA S/O. LATE. K. SAMACHAR AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS R/AT. NO.3022, SAMYUKTHA, 15TH CROSS, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 070 THROUGH GPA HOLDER MR. SHARATH K.S. S/O. K.S. SESHACHANDRAN. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S. KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT SHOBAMMA D/O. LATE, MUNITHIMMAIAH W/O. LATE. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT. KUDLU VILLLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-562 125. 2. SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA D/O. LATE. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT. KUDLU VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-562 125. 3. SRI. RAJAPPA S/O. LATE. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT. KUDLU VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-562 125. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32378 WP No. 34244 of 2024 4. SMT. MANJULAMMA D/O. LATE. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT. KUDLU VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-562 125. 5. SRI. PAPANNA S/O. LATE. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT. KUDLU VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-562 125. 6. SRI MUNIRAJU S/O. LATE. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT. KUDLU VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-562 125. 7. SRI. B. GOPAL S/O. LATE. THIMMARAYA @ BIYA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT. CHANNKAL VILLAGE, VIA. MILANDAHALLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR-563 130. 8. SMT. MUNIYAMMA S/O. LATE. THIMMARAYA @ BIYA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT. CHANNKAL VILLAGE, VIA. MILANDAHALLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR-563 130. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32378 WP No. 34244 of 2024 9. SMT. CHOWDAMMA W/O. LATE MUNIKULLAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT. JAKKASANDRA, A.K. COLONY, BANGALORE-560 030. 10. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA W/O. LATE. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT. KUDLU VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-562 125. 11. SMT. RATHNAMMA D/O. LATE THIMMARAYA @ BIYA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT. KADUGODI VILLAGE, AK COLONY, BANGALORE-560 030. 12. SMT. CHINNAMMA D/O. LATE THIMMARAYA @ BIYA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT. GUBBI, A.K. COLONY NEAR HENNUR BENGALURU-560 030. 13. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA D/O. LATE THIMMARAYA @ BIYA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/A. KUDLU VILLAGE ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-562 125. 14. SMT. CHIKKAMUNIYAMMA D/O LATE THIMMARAYA @ BIYA - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32378 WP No. 34244 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT BELLANDUR, A K COLONY BENGALURU-560 030. 15. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S/O. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT. KUDLU VILLAGE SARHAOUR HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-562 125. 16. SRI. JAYARAM S/O. THOTIKALLAMMA S/O. LATE. THIMMARAYA @ BIYA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT. ARALERI VILLAGE MALUR TALUK, KOLAR-563 130. 17. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA D/O. LATE. THIMMARYAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT. DOMMALUR, A.K. COLONY BENGALURU-560 030. 18. SMT. SAVITHRI D/O. LATE. THIMMARYAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT. NAGAVARAPALYA NEAR SHANIMATHMA TEMPLE BENGALURU-560 093. 19. SRI. BABU S/O. LATE. THIMMARYAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT. KUDLU VILLAGE - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32378 WP No. 34244 of 2024 SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-562 125. 20. SRI VENKATESH S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT KUDLU VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-562 125. 21. SMT. MANJULA D/O. LATE. THIMMARYAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT. KUDLU VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-562 125. 22. SMT. MUNIVENKATAMMA W/O MUNIKAVERAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT. KUDLU VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-562 125. 23. SRI. MUNIYAPPA S/O. LATE. MUNIVKAVERAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT. KUDLU VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-562 125. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32378 WP No. 34244 of 2024 24. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA S/O. LATE. MUNIVKAVERAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT. KUDLU VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-562 125. 25. SRI. MAHADEVA S/O. LATE. MUNIRANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT. KUDLU VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-562 125. 26. SMT. ANJINAMMA S/O. LATE. MUNIRANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT. KUDLU VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-562 125. 27. SRI. MUNIRAJU S/O. LATE. MUNIRANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT. KUDLU VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-562 125. 28. THE AIRCRAFT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32378 WP No. 34244 of 2024 REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 NO.15, 1ST CROSS CKC GARDEN OPP BENGALURU INSTITUTE OF ONCOLOGY HOSPITAL K H ROAD (DOUBLE ROAD) BENGALURU-560 027 REPRSENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SWAMY N.B.N.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6; SRI. REUBEN JACOB, SENIOR ADV. FOR SRI. PAWAN KUMAR M.N., ADVOCATE FOR R7, R9 TO R16; V/O DATED 20.01.2025 NOTICE TO R8, R17 TO R28 D/W) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER DATED 02.12.2024 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL REJECTING THE APPLICATIONS FILED NDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE BY THE P-1 TO 30 SEEKING IMPLEADMENT IN O.S.NO. 161/2015 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32378 WP No. 34244 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Petitioners are before this Court calling in question an order dated 02.12.2024, passed by the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, whereby, an application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC, by the petitioners –applicants seeking permission to implead themselves into the proceedings, stands rejected. 2. Heard Sri S. Kalyan Basavaraj, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Swamy N.B.N., learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 6, Sri Reuben Jacob, learned senior counsel for Sri Pawan Kumar M.N., learned counsel for the respondent Nos.7, 9 to 16. Notice to respondent Nos.8, 17 to 28 is dispensed with, vide order dated 20.01.2025. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The genesis of the problem appears to be a tussle between the two legal heirs of Biya @ Thimmaraya, who was the original grantee, in respect of the land bearing in survey - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32378 WP No. 34244 of 2024 No.28 of Kudlu Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District, under Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, is looming large. This leads to institution of a suit in O.S.No.161/2015, only insofar seeking declaration as to who among the two branches, are the legal heirs of the said Biya @ Thimmaraya, under the Act. In the said suit, 26 applications under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC come to be filed by the proposed defendants - vendors of the present petitioners, who claim to be the allottees of sites. 4. The applications were initially allowed, suo motu the concerned Court deletes the name of defendant No.22. This becomes the subject matter of the proceedings at the hands of a co-ordinate bench in Writ Petition No.5976/2021. The co- ordinate bench disposed the said petition on 12.01.2023, by the following order: “3. The defendant No.22 was impleaded as an additional defendant as per the order of the Court dated 14.12.2018. Subsequently, during the course of the trial, the impugned order has been passed in exercise of power under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC, whereby defendant No.22 has been ordered to be struck off. It cannot be denied, the power under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC is available for the Court to be - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32378 WP No. 34244 of 2024 exercised to strike off a party at any stage of the proceedings even suo-moto where it appears that the party has been improperly joined. 4. It is to be noticed that the petitioner claims right through the sale deed dated 03.10.2001, which eventually can be traced to the rights of the office holder. The question as to who are the legal representatives of the office holder is a matter that is being decided in the present suit. 5. It is also not in dispute that if the suit records a finding relating to either of the branches as being the legal representatives of the officer holder, the rights that flow to defendant No.22 would be affected either adversely or his right would be affirmed. The Court having impleaded him on 14.12.2018, this Court finds that the orders striking him off from arraying as party may not have been necessary considering the stage of the suit as well as nature of the issue. 6. The question as to the right of defendant No.22 as regard to the properties purchased by him is also a matter that could be determined while final adjudication is concerned. It would be appropriate to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and also ensuring that defendant No.22 is bound by the proceedings, that he is to be continued as a party in such of the proceedings. 7. Accordingly, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of defendants No.1 to 10 submits that there are no serious objection as such for continuance of defendant No.22. However, participation of defendant No.22 must be restricted to the issues framed. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he would ensure that his participation would be only to the limited - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32378 WP No. 34244 of 2024 extent of the issues framed and also as regard to proving of his title. 9. Recording such submission, while noticing that continuance of defendant No.22 may be necessary in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it is just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and accordingly, defendant No.22 will continue to be arrayed as party. Needless to state that in light of the undertaking of the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner's participation should be strictly within the frame work of the suit.” (Emphasis supplied) In the light of the afore-quoted order, defendant No.22, the vendor of these petitioners was permitted to continue as defendant No.22 in the said suit. After the vendor of these petitioners continues to be in the said suit, the petitioners file applications in the suit under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC seeking impleadment of themselves in the suit, on the score that if the vendors would not protect their interest as allottees of the sites from the hands of defendant No.22, they would be put to jeopardy. The applications come to be rejected on the score that they are neither proper nor necessary parties. It is - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32378 WP No. 34244 of 2024 therefore, the petitioners are before this Court in the subject petition. 5. Sri Reuben Jacob, learned senior counsel representing respondent Nos.7, 9 to 16 submits that all these petitioners have preferred suits for injunction against the two branches of the plaintiffs in the suit as the case would be, and those injunction suits are pending adjudication before the competent Courts. The apprehension of the learned senior counsel is that, in the event the vendor of the petitioners would not evince interest in the suit or collude with the parties to the suit, their interest would be put to jeopardy, and the suits that are pending seeking injunction would lose their significance. 6. In the light of the aforesaid circumstance as also the admitted situation that the petitioners have instituted several suits against the plaintiffs in O.S.No.161/2015, I deem it appropriate to dispose the petition, without disturbing the impugned order, with an observation that any order passed by the concerned Court in O.S.No.161/2015 will not come in the way or would bind the injunction suits pending before the competent Courts instituted by the plaintiffs. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32378 WP No. 34244 of 2024 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners at this juncture would submit that if the petitioners would not be permitted to be impleaded into the suit in O.S.No.161/2015, it would cause grave prejudice. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to notice the prayer that is sought by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.161/2015. It reads as follows: “40. The plaintiffs ancestor by name Biya, the Biya called Biya @ Thimmaraya. But, the rival claimants claiming one person by name Thimmaraya @Biya. Here two different person. 41. This suit for declaration of Plaintiffs legal heirship, the suit relief valued as a sum of rupees 1,000/- only. Hence, the Plaintiffs have paid Rs.25 on plaint as court fee under section 24 (d) of the Karnataka Court fee and Suits Valuation Act. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to declare the Plaintiffs are the legal heirs to the person Biya called as Biya alias Thimmaraya being ancestor to the Plaintiffs by passing judgment and decree in favour of the Plaintiffs by passing judgment and decree in favour of the Plainffs, award the costs of the suit, in the interest of justice and equity. The prayer of the plaintiffs in the said petition is for a declaration as to who are the legal heirs of the person – Biya @ Thimmaraya, ancestor of the plaintiffs. In the said suit, the - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32378 WP No. 34244 of 2024 vendor is already permitted to come on record by an order of the co-ordinate bench, as afore-quoted, and suits plethora of them, are preferred by the allottees from the hands of the vendor, seeking injunction, all of which are pending adjudication before the competent Courts. 8. In the light of the aforesaid prayer that the plaintiffs have sought before the concerned Court, the order of the concerned Court which rejects the impleading applications filed by these petitioners is required to be noticed. The impugned common order dated 02.12.2024, is required to be noticed. The order reads as follows: “These applications are filed by the applicants U/o 1 Rule 10(2) CPC and there by prayed to implead them as a parties in the present suit. 2. In the affidavit filed along with present applications the applicants have sworn to the facts that the plaintiffs have filed the suit for the relief of declaration and other ancillary reliefs. The plaintiffs have filed the suit to declare them as a legal heirs for the estate of Biya @ Thimmaraya for the land bearing Sy.No.28 which was purchased by Air Craft Employees House Building Co- operative Society through registered sale deed dated 28.03.1999. There after Air Craft Employees House and Building Co-operative Society formed layout by taking all necessary permits and license and allotted sites to its various members. The applicants are also one among those purchasers. Since the date of purchase the applicants are in possession of their respective sites and the khatha were also mutated in their names. Plaintiffs - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32378 WP No. 34244 of 2024 knowing all these facts deliberately chosen not to implead the applicants in the proceedings. But the applicants are proper and necessary parties to adjudicate the suit. Non- implediment of the applicants would results in multiplicity of proceedings. If applications are allowed no harm will cause to the plaintiffs, on the other hand if it is not allowed the applicants will be put to greater hardship hence prayed to allow this application. 3. Defendant No.1 to 9 have filed the objection to the present application wherein they have taken the defense that as per the order passed by District Court and conform by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India plaintiffs have filed the suit for the relier of declaration. Hence for this suit plaintiffs and defendant no.1 to 9 are only the necessary parties. The applicants have said that they have purchased the sites situated in different survey numbers but the suit is to figure out who are the legal heirs of Thimmaraya at @ Biya for which plaintiffs and defendant no.1 to 9 are sufficient. The applicants have already filed a separate individual suits for the relief of permanent injunction so they have no locus standi to file this application. This application is false and frivolous one, in order to drag the case the applicants have filed this application. If the application is allowed no purpose will be served and it will cause greater hardship to the defendant no.1 to 9 and the plaintiffs. Hence prayed to dismiss the application filed by the applicants. 4. From the above the following points are arisen for court determination. POINTS 1. Whether the applicants proved that they are the proper and necessary parties to adjudicate this case? 2. What order or decree? 5. Heard arguments on both sides perused the materials placed on record carefully. 6. The aforementioned points are answered as follows: - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32378 WP No. 34244 of 2024 Point No. 1:- Negative Point No. 2:- As per the final order 7. Point No.1:- The applicants in order to implead them as defendants in the suit have filed these applications. On perusal of the plaint it is noticed that the plaintiffs have filed the suit for the relief of declaration to declare them as legal heirs of Biya @ Thimmaraya. that in the application the applicants have said that they are the purchasers of the different sites which are formed by the Air Craft Employees Association in different survey numbers. Other than this the applicants have not convinced the court how they are either proper parties or necessary parties. As stated supra the suit is to figure out who are the legal heirs of Biya. The subject matter of this suit is not the survey numbers Which are mentioned in the affidavits accompanied by the applications. Further here in this case court is not determining any ones ownership over any property so as to implead the applicants. Under such circumstances it appears that the applicants are neither the necessary parties and nor the proper parties to adjudicate the case in hand. Hence in my opinion the applications filed by the applicants deserved to be dismissed Accordingly point No. 1 is answered in the Negative. 8. Point No.2:- In view of the discussion made above point no.2 is answered as follows; ORDER The applications filed by the applicants U/o 1 Rule 10(2) are hereby dismissed.” (Emphasis added) I do not find any warrant of interference in the impugned order, permitting these petitioners to implead themselves into the suit, which is for the purpose as afore-quoted. While - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32378 WP No. 34244 of 2024 making it clear that any order that is passed in these proceedings, even it be against the vendor, of the petitioners and would not influence the concerned Court before whom the injunction suits are pending adjudication. The concerned Court shall independently consider the rights of the allottees from the hands of the vendor. 9. It is pertinent to notice that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.161/2015, had preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.3858/2023, seeking a direction for early disposal of the proceedings. A coordinate bench of this Court on 06.10.2023, disposed the said writ petition, directing the concerned Court to conclude the proceedings within an outer limit of six months from the date of disposal i.e., 06.10.2023. In that light, I deem it appropriate to direct the concerned Court to infuse finality into the proceedings in O.S.No.161/2015, within an outer limit of four months, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, if not earlier. - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32378 WP No. 34244 of 2024 10. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59