- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54365 WP No. 36000 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.36000 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI SUMAN M. AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS S/O.LATE MARAPPA MAHADEVAKODIGEHALLI VILLAGE JALA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 149 …PETITIONER (BY SRI ABHINAV RAMANAND, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI SONNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O.LATE MUNIVENKARAYAPPA GANGANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI SIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 102 2. SRI YUAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O.LATE KRISHNAPPA GANGANAHALLI VILLAGE KONDENAHALLI POST KASABA HOBLI SIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 103 …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.10.2025 PASSED ON IA.NO.3 IN O.S.NO.124/2024 Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54365 WP No. 36000 of 2025 BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIDLAGHATTA, CHIKKABALLAPUR VIDE ANNEXURE -E. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioner. 2. This petition is filed by the impleading applicant, who filed an application in IA.No.3 under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC before the trial Court seeking to implead himself as a party to the suit proceedings in O.S.No.124/2024. 3. Learned counsel for plaintiff objected to the aforementioned application by filing a detailed objection statement. 4. Upon hearing learned counsels for parties, learned trial Judge vide its order dated 18.10.2025, rejected the application with cost. Therefore, the impleading applicant challenging the same, has approached this Court by filing this writ petition. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54365 WP No. 36000 of 2025 5. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for petitioner-impleading applicant that the impugned order passed by learned trial Judge is perverse, illegal and arbitrary. It is also contended by learned counsel that the suit schedule property has been sold by the defendant and his father namely, Late Krishnappa in favour of the father of the petitioner for valuable sale consideration way back in the year 2012. 5.1 It is further submitted that subsequently, the suit schedule property was the subject matter of the registered partition in the family of the petitioner, whereby the suit schedule property fell to the share of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner has become the absolute owner and in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Therefore, suppressing all these aspects, the plaintiff has filed a suit against the defendant, who is the son of the vendor of the petitioner. It is further contended by learned counsel for petitioner that learned trial Judge without application of mind and without taking into - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54365 WP No. 36000 of 2025 consideration the relevant material facts with regard to sale and ownership of the suit schedule property, has rejected the impleading application. 5.2 It is further contended by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner/impleading applicant would be a proper and necessary party. Since the petitioner is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, any order that would be passed by the Court would directly affect the petitioner. On these grounds, he contends that the impugned order of rejection of the impleading application is illegal, arbitrary, frivolous and the same requires to be set-aside. 6. This Court does not find any need or necessity to issue notice to the respondents i.e. the plaintiff and the defendant in the suit, for the reason that this Court is inclined to dismiss this petition. 7. While deciding the impleading application, learned trial Judge taking into consideration all the contentions - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54365 WP No. 36000 of 2025 put-forth by learned counsel for petitioner/impleading applicant, has come to the conclusion that if the petitioner is arrayed as a party to the suit, the scope of the permanent injunction would get enlarged and it would be practically converted into the suit for title without there being any intention of the plaintiff to sue for relief of title as the suit is for the relief of permanent injunction. Therefore, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that for effective adjudication of the controversies involved in the suit, the presence of the petitioner/impleading applicant would not be necessary at all and the petitioner/impleading applicant is not necessary or proper party to the suit proceedings and accordingly, rejected the impleading application. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court. 8. Though learned counsel for petitioner/impleading applicant urged several grounds that the petitioner/ impleading applicant is absolute owner of the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.114/4 (Old No.114/1) measuring - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54365 WP No. 36000 of 2025 to an extent of 1 acre 06 guntas situated at Appegowdanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Sidlaghatta Taluk, what he is required to establish and make out before the trial Court is whether he is necessary or proper party as contemplated under the provision of Order I Rule 10 of CPC is 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 through 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54365 WP No. 36000 of 2025 defendant, be struck out, and that the name of 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 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54365 WP No. 36000 of 2025 9. While considering the application for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, what is required to be seen is as to whether the applicant is necessary and proper party? 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in several catena of judgment has dealt with the requirements of who is a necessary and proper party. A necessary party is one without whom no order/decree can be made effectively and a proper party is one whose presence though not necessary would enable the Court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in the Suit. 11. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the following judgments in support of his case: i) Kandasamy vs. M.Palanisamy reported in LAWS(MAD)-2005-6-20 [decided on 16.06.2005]; - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54365 WP No. 36000 of 2025 ii) Ashok vs. The State of Maharashtra and others in WP.No.10493/2022 [decided on 11.10.2022]; iii) M/s.J.N.Real Estate vs. Shailendra Pradhan & Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos.5405-5406/2025 [decided on 22.04.2025]. 12. In my opinion, the aforementioned judgments relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant is for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The prayer in the suit is to restrain the defendant not to alienate or create any third party rights over the suit schedule property. 13. A short point that arise for consideration is that - "Whether the petitioner/impleading applicant would be a necessary and proper party in a suit for permanent injunction when no relief is sought against him and no declaratory relief is - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54365 WP No. 36000 of 2025 sought against the property, in which the applicant claims to be the owner of the suit schedule property?" 14. It is the case of the petitioner/impleading applicant that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Even if the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, it would certainly not affect to the right of the petitioner/impleading applicant as the petitioner claims to be the absolute owner by way of a registered document. Therefore, the judgment and decree that would be passed by the trial Court would not be binding on the petitioner/impleading applicant. He is at liberty to deal with the property in the manner he feels, so also, if any order that is passed not to alienate against the defendant in a suit. If the defendant is not the owner, the same would not be applicable again to the petitioner/ impleading applicant, so also, if an order is passed in the suit against the defendant with regard to not to alienate and create any third party rights and if the defendant is not the owner and as claimed, the petitioner/impleading - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54365 WP No. 36000 of 2025 applicant is the owner, then the plaintiff would not be beneficial. Therefore, under all these circumstances, viewed from any angle, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the learned trial Judge, as either way, it would not affect the rights of the impleading applicant, who claims to be the owner of the suit schedule property, moreover he is at liberty to deal with the property as he wishes. 15. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER This petition is dismissed. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE LB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11