- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7368 WP No. 10822 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 10822 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI.A.BHASKARA MANJA S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA MANJA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/A NO.395, VI MAIN ISRO LAYOUT BENGALURU- 560 078. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KASHINATH J D., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. INDHIRA KHARVI W/O LATE UDAYA KHARVI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/A UPPUNDA VILLAGE AND POST, BYNDOOR TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT- 576101 2. SRI NAGARAJA KHARVI S/O LATE NARAYANA KHARVI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/A KUMTI MANE, TARAPATHI, UPPUNDA VILLAGE, BYNDOOR TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT- 576101 Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7368 WP No. 10822 of 2024 3. SRI A SRIDHARA MANJA S/O RAMACHANDRA MANJA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/A KATHAARIHITHLU, KERGAL VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT- 576101. 4. SRI DEVADAS R MOGERA S/O RAMA MOGERA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/A KATHAARIHITHLU KERGAL VILLAGE KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT- 576101. 5. SRI GOPALA MANJA S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA MANJA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A SRI MAHAGANAPATHI DEVASTHANA, KATANAKATTE, KERGAL VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT- 576101. 6. SRI DURGADAS KHARVI S/O GOVINDA KHARVI AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/A KAKIKKALI GONNANAMANE TARAPATHI, UPPUNDA VILLAGE BYNDOOR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT- 576101. 7. SMT SULOCHANA D/O LATE RAMACHANDRA MANJA W/O VENKATARAJA AITHALA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7368 WP No. 10822 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/A HARYADI OF HESKATTOOR VILLAGE, HARYADI POST, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT- 576101. 8. SMT SUSHEELA D/O LATE RAMACHANDRA MANJA W/O A J GURUMOORTHY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/A SRI ANANTHAPADAMANABHA NILAYA NEAR ANANTHAPADMANABHA TEMPLE HEBRI, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT- 576101. 9. SRI A VIGNESHWARA MANJA S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA MANJA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/A NO.36/A, MALNAD ALLOY CASTING PRIVATE LIMITED, MACHENAHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT- 577201. 10. SMT. SUMITHRA D/O LATE RAMACHANDRA MANJA, W/O A. VENKATESHA ADIGA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS C/O MADHAVA ADIGA BADAKERE, NAVUNDA POST, KUNDAPURA TALUK 576201 …RESPONDENTS (BY MISS DHARANI.J FOR SRI. AJITH ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R6; V/O DTD 27.08.2024, NOTICE TO R3 TO R10 IS D/W) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7368 WP No. 10822 of 2024 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 19.02.2024 PASSED ON IA NO. II AND III FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10 READ WITH SEC 151 OF CPC FILED IN F.D.P NO. 1/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KUNDAPURA AS PER ANNEXURE-A ACCORDINGLY DISMISS THE IA NO. II AND III FILED BY THE R-1 AND 2 AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND E2 AS THE R-1 AND 2 ARE NOT NECESSARY OR PROPER PARTIES. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the petitioner/plaintiff in FDP.No.1/2017 is directed against the impugned order dated 19.02.2024 passed on IA.Nos.II and III whereby the said application filed by the respondents No.1 and 2/impleading applicants to be impleaded as additional respondents No.5 and 6 to the final decree proceedings was allowed by the trial Court by holding as under : - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7368 WP No. 10822 of 2024 ORDERS ON I.A.NO.II AND III The above said I.A.ll and lll are filed by one Indira Kharvi and Durgadas Kharvi to get impleaded them as necessary parties in the present Final Decree Proceedings. 2. The ground for impeding of as necessary party is that during the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.12/2011 the said Indira Kharvi purchased the land in Sy.No.89/17 and 8/15 and though they filed Miscellaneous petition in Misc.No.4/2014 and 5/2017 to set aside the exparte decree passed in O.S.No.12/2011 but the above said Miscellaneous petition come to be dismissed vide order dated 31-01-2023. 3. Further, it is contended that the O.S.No.70/2018 and 76/2018 instituted by Nagarja Kharvi and Durgadas Kharvi have been dismissed as not maintainable based findings given on the preliminary issues vide order dated 07-07-2023. The said Nagaraja Kharvi and Durgadas Kharvi also filed similar application on the same grounds as they purchased the land during the pendency of the said O.S.No.12/2011 in Sy.No.89/2020 to an extent of 45 cents. The above said IA No.2 and 3 have been opposed as not maintainable. Accordingly sought for dismissal of the same. 4. Heard both the sides. Perused the materials available on record. 5. Now, the following points that arise for my consideration:- 1. Whether I.A.No.ll and III are maintainable and there are sufficient grounds to allow the same filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC to get implead them as necessary parties? 2. If so, what order? 6. Now My answer on the above points are as follows:- Point No.1 : In the Affirmative Point No.2 : As per final order for the Following:- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7368 WP No. 10822 of 2024 REASONS 7. Point No.1: The above said I.A.No.II and III have been objected as not maintainable. But this Court already passed in 1.A.No.4 which filed under Order 1, Rules 10 and by 151 of CPC by one Durgadas Kharvi vide Order dated 16-03-2023. But while amendment of the FDP petition impleaded the Indira Kharvi as respondent No.6 instead of implead the Durgadas Kharvi. Hence, as already I.A.No.4 has been considered and as such to adjudicate case effectively whether the purchasers would get any right or interest as even in FDP rights and liability of parties can decided as per decision of the Hon'ble High Court reported 2013 Vol-l KCCR 672 (D.B.) S.K. Lakshminarasappa Since deceased by his L.Rs. (Smt. Nagarathnamma and Others) vs Rudriah Since dead and hence I am of the view that the l.A.No.2 and 3 also may be considered. 8. Point No.2: In view of the above said findings on Point.No.1, I proceed to pass the following : ORDER I.A.No.II and III filed by Indira Kharvi and Nagaraja Kharvi are allowed and they are permitted to get implead as respondent Nos.5 and 6. Accordingly, the petitioner has been directed to amending the petition and file amended petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the trial Court has come to the correct and proper - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7368 WP No. 10822 of 2024 conclusion that the respondents No.1 and 2 who claim to be lis pendens purchasers of the suit schedule property were both proper and necessary parties to the final decree proceedings and they were entitled to be impleaded as respondents No.5 and 6 and contest the final decree proceedings on merits. 4. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the trial Court allowing IA.Nos.2 and 3 cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to be capricious or perverse or having resulted in miscarriage of justice warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the case of as held by the Apex Court in the cases of (i) Radhey Shyam and Another Vs. Chhabi Nath and Ors. reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423 (ii) K.P. Natarajan and Another Vs. Muthalammal & Ors. reported in AIR 2021 SUPREME - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7368 WP No. 10822 of 2024 COURT 3443 and (iii) Mohamed Ali Vs. Jaya & Ors. reported in (2022) 10 SCC 477. 5. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is thereby dismissed. 6. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the final decree proceedings as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE RJ