- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14869 WP No. 5998 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5998 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. N. PRATHAP KUMAR AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O. LATE D. NANJAPPA, RESIDING AT NO.32, 4TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 034. 2. B. N. SURESH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O. LATE D. NANJAPPA, RESIDING AT NO.487/1, 38TH CROSS, 8TH BLOCK, SUNSHINE ENCLAVE, BANGALORE-560 082. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. HARSHA KUMAR GOWDA H.R., ADVOCATE) AND: MR. MOHAMMED KHEZAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED SAMIULLAH, R/AT NO.20, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN, SOMESHWARANAGAR, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 011. …RESPONDENT THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.12.2025, (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE LII ADDL. Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14869 WP No. 5998 of 2026 CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH NO.53), BANGALORE, IN O.S. NO.1140/2022 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER 1. In this writ petition, the petitioners-defendants has called in question the order dated 08.12.2025 passed by LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-53), Bangalore in O.S.No.1140/2022, whereby I.A.No.1/2024 filed by the defendants under Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 of CPC for framing of additional issues has been rejected. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court in Original Suit. 3. The plaintiff has filed a suit for bare injunction. On service of summons, the defendants filed written - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14869 WP No. 5998 of 2026 statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court has framed the following issues: “ISSUES 1. Whether the plaintiff proves his lawful possession and enjoyment over suit schedule property as on the date of institution of the suit? and 2. Whether the plaintiff proves the interference of the defendant with his peaceful possession enjoyment over suit schedule property as alleged in the suit pliant? 1 3. Whether the defendants proves that the suit for bare injunction is not maintainable without seeking the relief of declaration and possession as averred in para No3 of the written statement.? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the relief as prayed for? 5. What order or decree?” 4. Thereafter, the defendants filed I.A.No.1/2024 under Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking framing of additional issues with regard to the maintainability of the suit on the ground of non-joinder of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14869 WP No. 5998 of 2026 necessary parties. Since the suit is filed for bare injunction, the plaintiff is the dominus litis and is entitled to proceed against the person, who allegedly causes interference, hence, the defendants cannot dictate the plaintiff to implead other persons as defendants in the suit. The Trial Court has rightly rejected I.A.No.1/2024 filed by the defendants seeking for framing of additional issues. 5. Therefore, there is no error or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE HA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23