- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17742 WP No. 9836 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9836 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RAMAGOPAL K V S/O LATE K VEERABRAHMA RAJU AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT KALLINAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, THONDEBHAVI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561213. 2. SRI PRABHAKAR K V S/O LATE K VEERABRAHMA RAJU AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT KALLINAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, THONDEBHAVI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561213. 3. SMT. PRABHAVATHI K V D/O LATE K VEERABRAHMA RAJU W/O M.D. NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT 5TH CROSS, SWAMI VIVEKANANDA ROAD, GOKULA EXTENSION, 2ND STAGE, TUMKUR-572103. 4. SRI RAMKUMAR S/O LATE K VEERABRAHMA RAJU AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT KALLINAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, THONDEBHAVI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561213. Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17742 WP No. 9836 of 2026 5. SRI KLV RAJU S/O LATE K VEERABRAHMA RAJU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT KALLINAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, THONDEBHAVI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561213. 6. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA W/O LATE SRI BALAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT KALLINAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, THONDEBHAVI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561213. 7. SRI ROHIT S/O LATE SRI BALAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT KALLINAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, THONDEBHAVI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561213. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JANARDHANA REDDY B.J., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SARASWATHAMMA D/O LATE K VEERABRAHMA RAJU W/O B P ASWATHANARAYANA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.5, KRISHNA ELEGANCE AMARJYOTHI LAYOUT, SANJAY NAGAR, BENGALURU-560094. 2. SMT. YASHODHAMMA @ YASHODHA REDDY K V D/O LATE K VEERABRAHMA RAJU W/O T K LAKSHMINARAYAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.75, SRI VENKATESHWARA, 4TH CROSS, ASHOK NAGAR, TUMKUR-572103. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17742 WP No. 9836 of 2026 3. SRI G. YARRA THIMMA REDDY S/O LATE G. GIDDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS R/AT GUNDAGALLU VILLAGE, KODIGENHALLI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT -572127. 4. SRI G.VENKATARANGA REDDY S/O LATE G. GIDDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/AT GUNDAGALLU VILLAGE, KODIGENHALLI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT -572127. 5. SRI G. CHINNAPPA REDDY S/O LATE G. GIDDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS R/AT GUNDAGALLU VILLAGE, KODIGENHALLI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT -572127. 6. SRI AMANULLA S/O NAWAB SABI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT ALAKAPURA VILLAGE, THONDEBHAVI HOBLI, GAURIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-561213. 7. SMT. YASMIN TAJ H.A., W/O RIYAZ KHAN AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT SUMANGALI EXTENSION, HIREBIDANUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, GAURIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-561213. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17742 WP No. 9836 of 2026 8. SRI MUNNA S/O LATE IMAN SAB, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT. THONDEBHAVI RAILWAY STATION, GAURIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-561213. 9. SRI DODDAVEERANNA S/O LATE CHIKKATAMMANNA, AGED ABOUT 98 YEARS, R/AT NERAGANAHALLI, KUNDAANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL-577534. 10. MONSANTO INDIA LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1913, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT AHURA CENTRE, 5TH FLOOR, MAHAKALI CAVES ROAD, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI-400093 ALSO, AT KALLINAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, THONDEBHAVI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT -561213. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARIKRISHNA PRAMOD, ADVOCATE C/R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH/SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28/02/2026 PASSED IN M.A.NO.23/2025 BY THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT CHIKKABALLAPURA AND CONSEQUENTLY, DISMISS THE I.A NO.III FILED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC TO DELETE RESPONDENT NO.9 TO 16 FROM THE APPEAL AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17742 WP No. 9836 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER 1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have called in question the order dated 28.02.2026 passed by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura (for short ‘First Appellate Court’) on I.A.No.III filed under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC, in M.A.23/2025, whereby the said application has been allowed. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.66/2025 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gowribidanur (for short ‘Trial Court’) seeking for relief of partition and separate possession. Initially, the Trial Court had granted an exparte order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or creating any third party rights over the suit schedule properties. On appearance, the defendant Nos.1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 filed application for vacating the said exparte order. On the basis of the application filed by the defendants, the Trial Court vacated - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17742 WP No. 9836 of 2026 the exparte order of injunction. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff filed an appeal in M.A.No.23/2025 before the First Appellate Court. The plaintiff also filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC seeking for deletion of respondent Nos.9 to 16 from array of parties in the appeal. The First Appellate Court, by impugned order, has allowed the application. Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. It is pertinent to note that the respondent Nos.9 to 16 before the First Appellate Court have neither filed any application seeking for vacating the interim order passed by the Trial Court nor they have challenged the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Court. 4. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate any legal injury or prejudice caused to them by the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Court. The order permitting deletion of respondent Nos. 9 to 16 is not shown to adversely affect the rights of the petitioners, and the said - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17742 WP No. 9836 of 2026 aforesaid respondents themselves have not chosen to challenge the same. In the absence of any grievance from the affected parties, the petitioners herein cannot be permitted to question the deletion on their behalf. Moreover, the impugned order does not suffer from any error, illegality, or perversity warranting interference of this Court. No grounds are made out to entertain the writ petition. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE DM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33