- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36436 WP No. 22615 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 22615 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. MANJULA M. D., D/O DEVAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.22, 2ND CROSS CAUVERY LAYOUT DODDABETTALLI VIDYARANYAPURA POST BENGALURU – 560 097. REPT. BY HER SPA HOLDER GEORGE K. A., S/O LATE AGUSTINE K. J., AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.592 11TH CROSS, MCECHS LAYOUT DR. SHIVARAMKARANTHANAGAR POST BENGALURU – 560 077. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SRINIVAS RAO J. V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI RAMESH N., S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36436 WP No. 22615 of 2025 CHOWDESHWARI NILAYA 3RD CROSS, THINDLU MAIN ROAD KODIGEHALLI SAHAKAR NAGAR POST BENGALAURU – 560 092. 2. SRI RAJENDRU N., S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT VEERANNESHWARA NILAYA THINDLU MAIN ROAD KODIGEHALLI SAHAKAR NAGAR POST BENGALURU – 560 092. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JANARDHAN G., ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE / QUASH THE ORDER ON IA NO.1/2025 DTD 18.06.2025 PASSED BY PRL. CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU AND IN OS NO. 652/2020 VIDE ANNX-A AND CONSEQUENTLY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36436 WP No. 22615 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 18-06-2025 passed on I.A.No.1 of 2025 by the Principal Civil Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.652 of 2020 rejecting the application filed seeking to implead the Tahsildar as a necessary party to the proceedings. 2. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The petitioner is the defendant, the respondents are plaintiffs 1 and 2. A suit is instituted in O.S.No.652 of 2020 for eviction and other incidental reliefs. The issue in the lis does not pertain to the merit of the matter. The defendant/petitioner files an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC seeking to implead the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk as defendant No.2, on the score that in the cross-examination of PW.1, the defendant, for the first time, comes to know that plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit schedule property and the true owners are different. The plaintiffs have fabricated the documents and committed fraud - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36436 WP No. 22615 of 2025 on the defendant. The concerned Court rejects the application holding that in a suit for eviction the Tahsildar would not be a proper and necessary party and the suit is to be decided on the landlord and tenant relationship. It is this order that has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 3. Heard Sri Srinivas Rao J V, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Janardhan G, learned counsel appearing for respondents. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that though the defendant is tenant, she is entitled to put up her defence with regard to the property that is not belonging to the plaintiffs and therefore, for the said purpose and examination of revenue records, Tahsildar would become a necessary party. He would contend that the application be allowed by setting aside the order of the concerned Court. 5. Per-contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs would contend that the petitioner is a - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36436 WP No. 22615 of 2025 tenant. Suit is for eviction. The Tahsildar is neither a proper nor a necessary party and would seek dismissal of the petition. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated issue lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondents are the owners of the suit schedule property. The suit is for eviction. In the said suit, after the cross-examination of P.W.1, the petitioner files an application seeking impleadment of the Tahsildar. As observed, in a suit for eviction, the relationship of landlord and tenant has to be adjudicated not touching upon the title of the landlord, but on the document of tenancy, which is not in dispute. The petitioner/defendant accepts the landlord and tenant relationship. The cause of action to file the suit arose when the defendant/petitioner failed to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises. The concerned Court, on this very score, rejects the application holding that the Tahsildar is neither a proper nor a necessary party. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36436 WP No. 22615 of 2025 8. I do not find any warrant to interfere with the well reasoned order of the concerned Court rejecting the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, as I do not find any perversity in the said order. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 CT:SS