- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15105 WP No. 21385 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 21385 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE SIDDARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT GARGESHWARAPURA SOLUR HOBLI MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGAR DISTRICT 2. SMT RANGAMMA W/O LATE SIDDRAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS R/AT BASAVESHWARA CIRCLE MAGADI TOWN MAGADI DIST RAMANAGAR 3. SRI NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE SIDDRAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT BASAVESHWARA CIRCLE MAGADI TOWN MAGADI DIST RAMANAGAR 4. SMT GANGAMMA W/O LATE GOVINDAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15105 WP No. 21385 of 2022 SOLUR HOBLI MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGAR DISTRICT …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ANDANAPPA GURAPPA BALLOLLI.,ADVOCATE; R1, R3 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) AND: 1. SMT LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE RANGAIAH D/O CHIKKAHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT KEMPASAGARA VILLAGE KASABA HBLI MAGADI TALUK 2. SMT VENKATAMMA W/O LATE CHINNIGAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT BYALALU VILLAGE TAVAREKERE HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK 3. SMT NAGAMMA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS W/O LATE THIMMAIAH D/O CHIKKAHANUMANTHAIAH R/AT ALUR VILLAGE DASANPURA HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK 4. SMT THIMMAKKA D/O CHIKKAHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.13 1ST CROSS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15105 WP No. 21385 of 2022 KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD JARAGANAHALLI BOMMANAHALLI NAGARA SABHA UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK 5. SMT NAGAMMA W/O SIDDAGANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT KEMPANAHALLI VILLAGE SOMPURA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK 6. SRI SRINIVAS S/O THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 7. SRI H RAMCHANDRA S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO.235, JATTIPALYA VILLAGE, KADABGERE POST TAVAREKERE HOBLI …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA.A., ADVOCATE) THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE COURT BELOW DTD 26.09.2022 AS PER ANNEXURE-A PASSED ON I.A.NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(20 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT IN THE CASE OF O.S.NO.144/2020 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MAGADI. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15105 WP No. 21385 of 2022 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER The present petition is filed by the plaintiffs challenging the order dated 26.09.2022 passed on I.A.No.3 filed under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') in O.S.No.144/2020 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Magadi (for short 'the Trial Court') to implead the respondent No.8 as party in the suit. 2. Sri.A.G.Ballolli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed a suit for declaration of ownership over the suit schedule property and consequential relief that judgment and decree in O.S.No.457/2011 is not binding upon the plaintiff and further sale deed dated 09.07.2019 in favour of defendant No.5 is null and void. It is submitted that during the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the defendant No.5 sold the property in favour of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15105 WP No. 21385 of 2022 one Muniyappa, which compelled the petitioner to file an application to implead him as defendant No.8. However, the Trial Court dismissed the said application solely on the ground that the sale is during the pendency of the suit, hence, principle of lis pendens applies. It is further submitted that if the respondent No.8 herein further alienates the property, it would be difficult for the plaintiff to get the decree executed if he succeeds in the suit and it would lead to multiplicity of the proceedings. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 3. Though notice to other respondents is served, there is no representation. 4. The respondent No.8 newly impleaded in the present proceedings himself has filed an application before this court to come on record. The said application is accompanied with a copy of the sale deed dated 26.11.2021. In the affidavit accompanying the application, respondent No.8 sought to come on record in the writ proceedings. 5. It is to be noticed that the petitioner herein filed O.S.No.144/2020 seeking for declaration and other - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15105 WP No. 21385 of 2022 consequential reliefs. The said suit came to be filed on 21.05.2020 and during the pendency of the said suit, defendant No.7 alienated the suit schedule property in favour of the respondent No.8 vide registered sale dated 26.11.2021. 6. The Trial Court under the impugned order rejected the application. In my considered view, the said approach of the trial Court is erroneous as it is not in dispute that if the plaintiff is able to prove that the alienation of the suit schedule property is during the pendency of the suit, the principle of lis pendence definitely applies. However, it cannot be ignored that if the respondent No.8 herein further alienates the property, then the plaintiff is required to challenge such alienations by seeking independent relief by filing different suits. Hence, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and taking note of the nature of the reliefs sought in the suit, I am of the considered view that the application in I.A.3 filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC is required to be allowed. 7. For the aforementioned reasons, writ petition is allowed, the order dated 26.09.2022 is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.3 filed under Order I Rule 10(2) read with - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15105 WP No. 21385 of 2022 Section 151 of the CPC by the plaintiff is allowed. The proposed defendant No.8 is permitted to be brought on record. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17