- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26746 W.P. No.14554/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.14554/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. SURESH .C S/O LATE C. CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO.95/4, 6TH MAIN CHAMARAJAPETE, BENGALURU-560018. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MADHUKAR NADIG, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. C. BABU S/O LATE CHANGALARAYA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO.18, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD VASANTHAPURA CROSS CANARA BANK ROAD BENGALURU-560062. 2. SRI. M. PRAKASH S/O LATE C. MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS SHOP OLD NO.95/A NEW NO.4, 6TH MAIN APPURAO ROAD, CHAMARAJPET BENGALURU-560018. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. SHANKAR, ADV., FOR R1 R2 SERVED) Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26746 W.P. No.14554/2022 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 15.03.2022, PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-62) IN O.S.NO.20/2016, ON THE I.A.NO.XIV, FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-G IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 15.03.2022 passed on IA.No.14 in OS.No.20/2016 by the LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-62), (for short ‘the trial Court). 2. Heard Sri.Madhukar Nadig, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.G.Shankar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material available on record. 3. The respondent No.1 herein filed OS.No.20/2016 against respondent No.2 seeking a declaration that he is the owner of the suit schedule property, a direction to the defendant to quit and vacate - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26746 W.P. No.14554/2022 the suit schedule property and deliver the physical possession of the same and other consequential reliefs. The said suit is contested by respondent No.2. In the said suit, the petitioner herein filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking impleadment as a party, which came to be rejected by the trial Court. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that one Smt.R.C.Rajamma executed a registered Will dated 05.10.1989 bequeathing the properties in favour of her eight children, including the father of the petitioner herein. Hence, the petitioner is a necessary and proper party to the suit filed by another son of Late Smt.R.C.Rajamma. It is further contended that the legal heirs of another son, Sri.M.C.Govindarajulu and others have filed suit in OS.No.9376/2006 for partition, in which the father of the petitioner herein is arrayed as defendant No.10 and therefore, any order passed in the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26746 W.P. No.14554/2022 suit filed by respondent No.1 would affect the rights in the pending suit for partition. 5. It is to be noticed that respondent No.1 is independently claiming the right based on the registered Will dated 05.10.1989 alleged to have been executed by Smt.R.C.Rajamma and the burden lies upon him to prove the said Will and his right deriving under the said Will. In the said suit, the petitioner cannot assert his right, if any, as he is already a party to a suit in OS.No.9376/2006, which is pending adjudication for partition. In my considered view, the trial Court was fully justified in recording the finding that the petitioner being the dominus litis, cannot be compelled to implead others as a party to the suit in OS.No.20/2016. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36