- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45325 WP No. 53252 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 53252 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. D.R. VATHSALA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS W/O D.R. NAGARAJA RAO RESIDING AT NO.493/68, III MAIN BANASHANKARI I STAGE, I BLOCK BENGALURU - 560 050. …PETITIONER (BY SRI BHADRINATH R, ADV.) AND: 1. SRI SEENAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY RESIDING AT NO.40 /7 NELLURAHALLI, WHITEFIELED POST BANGALORE - 560 066. 2. THE SECRETARY KENDRA UPADHYAYARA SANGHA (REGD) BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.24, SUBBARAMA SHETTY ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE - 560 004. 3. SMT. SHYALAJA B W/O G.N. JANARDHANA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.273/B 37TH 'A' CROSS, 8TH BLOCK NEAR JSS COLLEGE, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 082. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45325 WP No. 53252 of 2018 4. SRI R. RAMESH S/O LATE SUBRAMANI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.34 6TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN VENKATAPURA, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 034. 5. THE HDFC BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER SRI YOGESH N AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O L. NAGANNA OFFICE OF HDFC BANK HOUSE SENAPATI NAPAT MARG LOWER PAREL MUMBAI - 400 013. 6. SRI SAMEER KUMAR AGARWALLA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS S/O MAHABIR AGARWALLA RESIDING AT NO.790, 16TH MAIN 23RD CROSS, HSR CLUB, HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK - 560 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JANARDHANA, ADV., FOR R-1; SRI M.N. MADHUSUDHAN, ADV., FOR R-2; V/O/D 06.11.2025 R-3 AND R-4 DISMISSED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD13.11.2018 ON IA NO.13 IN O.S.NO.2967/2011 PASSED BY THE XLIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BANGALORE [CCH-45] ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF/PETITINER UNDER ORDER I RULE 10[2] OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND SAME CAME TO BE DISMISSED AS FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW THE IA NO.13 IN O.S.NO.2967/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BANGALORE [CH-45] FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45325 WP No. 53252 of 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Plaintiff is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set- aside the order dated 13.11.2018 passed on IA No.13 in OS No.2967/2011 by the Court of XLIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent though the matter is called twice. 3. Petitioner has filed OS No.2967/2011 seeking the relief of declaration that the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2004 passed in OS No.134/2001 is not binding on her and registered Sale Deed dated 11.04.2007 executed through Court process in favour of defendant no.1 in the present suit and the rectification deed executed subsequently are null and void and liable to be cancelled. A further prayer is also made to declare that the order passed in Execution Case No.533/2005 does not bind the plaintiff and further to direct defendant no.2 to execute a registered Sale Deed in respect of the suit schedule - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45325 WP No. 53252 of 2018 property in favour of the plaintiff and to grant permanent injunction. 4. The prayer made in the suit is opposed by defendant no.2 by filing written statement. After the issues were framed based on the rival pleadings, IA No.13 was filed on behalf of the plaintiff to implead the proposed defendants, who are respondent Nos.3 to 6 in this petition as party defendant Nos.3 to 6 in OS No.2967/2011. The said application was opposed by the proposed defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the Trial Court by order impugned has rejected IA No.13. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff is before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the suit, the suit schedule property was sold by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.3, who is none other than the wife of the counsel appearing for defendant No.1. Thereafter, defendant No.3 has sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.4 and the said property was brought for sale by proposed defendant No.5-Bank, to whom the property was mortgaged by defendant No.4 and the proposed defendant No.6 is the successful purchaser of the suit schedule - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45325 WP No. 53252 of 2018 property in the auction that was held by the Bank. He submits that proposed defendants are necessary and proper parties to the suit to make the decree passed in the suit, binding on them, failing which the plaintiff will not be in a position to enjoy the fruits of the decree in the event, the suit is decreed. 6. OS No.2967/2011 is filed by the petitioner herein with a prayer to set-aside the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2004 passed in OS No.134/2001. The said suit appears to have been filed by defendant no.1 herein for specific performance of the sale agreement said to have been executed by the petitioner herein and in the said suit, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, ex-parte decree was passed, which was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in RFA No.1891/2010 and this Court had dismissed the said RFA, reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said decree by filing a fresh suit. 7. It appears that in the execution proceedings which was initiated by defendant no.1, Sale Deed in respect of the suit schedule property was executed in his favour through Court process and even the said Sale Deed has been challenged in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45325 WP No. 53252 of 2018 the present suit. According to the petitioner, during the pendency of OS No.2967/2011, defendant No.1 has executed a Sale Deed in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the proposed defendant, who is none other than the wife of the advocate appearing for defendant no.1 before the Trial Court as well as before this Court. It is alleged that defendant No.3 has thereafter sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.4 who appears to have availed loan from proposed defendant No.5-Bank for purchasing the suit schedule property. Since proposed defendant No.4 had failed to repay the loan, suit schedule property was brought for sale by the proposed defendant No.5 and the proposed defendant no.6 is the successful purchaser of the suit schedule property in the auction that was held by the Bank. 8. In normal circumstances, the purchasers of property during the pendency of the proceedings are not required to be arrayed as parties to the suit. However, in the present case, considering the nature of relief sought for in the plaint and also having regard to the alleged conduct of defendant no.1 in executing sale deed in favour of proposed defendant no.3, who - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45325 WP No. 53252 of 2018 is none other than the wife of the advocate appearing for defendant no.1 before the Trial Court as well as this Court, I am of the opinion that the proposed defendants who are respondent Nos.3 to 6 in this writ petition are just a necessary parties to the suit in order to bind them with the result of the suit. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, in the event of the petitioner succeeding in the suit, she would not be in a position to enjoy the fruits of the decree in the absence of the proposed defendants being arrayed as party defendants to the proceedings. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting IA No.13 filed on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly, the following order:- 9. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 13.11.2018 passed on IA No.13 in OS No.2967/2011 by the Court of XLIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is set-aside and consequently, the prayer made in the said application is granted. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45325 WP No. 53252 of 2018 10. In view of the disposal of the main petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the same is disposed off. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14