- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17745 WP No. 10035 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. 10035 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 – 561 213. 2. SRI PRABHAKAR K.V S/O LATE K VEERABRAHMA RAJU AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT KALLINAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE THONDEBHAVI HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 561 213. 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 – 572 103. 4. SRI RAMKUMAR S/O LATE K VEERABRAHMA RAJU AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT KALLINAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE THONDEBHAVI HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 561 213. Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17745 WP No. 10035 of 2026 5. SRI KLV RAJU S/O LATE K VEERABRAHMA RAJU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT KALLINAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE THONDEBHAVI HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 561 213. 6. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA W/O LATE SRI BALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT KALLINAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE THONDEBHAVI HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 561 213. 7. SRI ROHIT S/O LATE SRI BALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/AT KALLINAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE THONDEBHAVI HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 561 213. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI JANARDHANA REDDY B.J, ADV.) 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, BENGALUR – 560 094. 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 – 572 103. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17745 WP No. 10035 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 – 572 127. 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 – 572 127. 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 – 572 127. 6. SRI AMANULLA S/O NAWAB SABI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT ALAKAPURA VILLAGE THONDEBHAVI HOBLI GAURIBIDANUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT – 561 213. 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 – 561 213. 8. SRI MUNNA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17745 WP No. 10035 of 2026 S/O LATE IMAN SAB AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT. THONDEBHAVI RAILWAY STATION GAURIBIDANUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT – 561 213. 9. SRI DODDAVEERANNA S/O LATE CHIKKATAMMANNA AGED ABOUT 98 YEARS R/AT NERAGANAHALLI, KUNDAANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL – 577 534. 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 – 400 093 ALSO, AT KALLINAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE THONDEBHAVI HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 561 213. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARIKRISHNA PRAMOD, ADV. FOR C/R1) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH /SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28/02/2026 PASSED IN M.A.NO.24/2025 BY THE HONBLE 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. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17745 WP No. 10035 of 2026 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.No.24/2025, 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17745 WP No. 10035 of 2026 application filed by the defendants, the Trial Court vacated the exparte order of injunction. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff filed an appeal in M.A.No.24/2025 before the First Appellate Court. The plaintiff also filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17745 WP No. 10035 of 2026 adversely affect the rights of the petitioners, and the said 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.: 39