- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29953 W.P. No.1787/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.1787/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS S/O THIMMAIAH R/AT. SRI NILAYA NO.2787, 16TH CROSS 6TH MAIN, K.R. ROAD BSK 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560070. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRINCE ISAC, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. DAMJI D. PATEL AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS S/O DHANJI J. PATEL RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.1436 7TH B MAIN, 1ST C CROSS BEHIND RPC LAYOUT LIBRARY HAMPINAGAR RPC LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE BENGALURU NORTH-560104. 2. SRI. M. GOPAL AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O LATE M. MEGANATHAN RESIDING AT NO.262, SAMPIGE ROAD BETWEEN 17TH AND 18TH CROSS MALLESWARAM Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29953 W.P. No.1787/2022 BENGALURU-560003. 3. SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE G.H. BANGERA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO.12/1, 2ND MAIN 9TH CROSS, CHAMRAJPET BANGALORE-560018. 4. SMT. MANGALAGOWRI D/O LATE G.H. BANGERA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NO.58, 5TH MAIN ROAD GIRIDHAMA LAYOUT BEML 3RD STAGE RAJARAJESHWARI NAGARA BANGALORE SOUTH-560098. 5. SMT. SUJATHA .B D/O LATE G.H. BANGERA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO.58, 5TH MAIN ROAD GIRIDHAMA LAYOUT BEML 3RD STAGE RAJARAJESHWARI NAGARA BANGALORE SOUTH-560098. 6. SRI. SHARATH KUMAR .H S/O LATE HARISHCHANDRA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.12/7, OLD 12/1 9TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN ROAD CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE-560018. 7. SRI. PUNITH KUMAR .H S/O LATE HARISHCHANDRA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.12/7, OLD 12/1 9TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN ROAD CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE-560018. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29953 W.P. No.1787/2022 8. SMT. H. RASHMI D/O LATE HARISHCHANDRA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO.12/7, OLD 12/1 9TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN ROAD CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE-560018. 9. SMT. SUREKHA .H D/O LATE HARISHCHANDRA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO.12/7, OLD 12/1 9TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN ROAD CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE-560018. 10. SRI. RAJESH .H S/O HEMAVATHI HARISHCHANDRA BANGERA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO.12/7, OLD 12/1 9TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN ROAD CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE-560018. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHOKKA REDDY, ADV., FOR C/R3 TO R10 SRI. VINAYAK KULKARNI, ADV., FOR R1 AND R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 20.11.2021 IN O.S.NO.5758/2020 ON I.A.NO.III ON THE FILE OF VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E AND APPLICATION IA NO.III IN O.S. NO.5758/2020 ON THE FILE OF VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU BE DISMISSED IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE & ETC. 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29953 W.P. No.1787/2022 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 20.11.2022 passed on IA.No.III in OS.No.5758/2020 by the VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short ‘the trial Court’). 2. Heard the arguments on both sides and meticulously perused the material available on record. 3. The petitioner filed OS.No.5758/2020 against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 seeking relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property and the suit schedule property is shown as a residential house property bearing No.83, Pattanagera, CMC Khatha No.479, formed in Sy.No.67 duly converted and situated at Halagevaderahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk measuring 30x40. In the said suit, defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed a written statement as well as raised the counterclaim seeking declaration that defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the ‘A’ schedule property, sought declaration that the sale deed dated 03.03.1997 between brother of the plaintiff and his predecessor is not binding upon them and further declaration that the gift - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29953 W.P. No.1787/2022 deed dated 16.12.2013 between plaintiff's brother and plaintiff in respect of the counterclaim schedule ‘B’ property is also not binding upon them and also sought relief of temporary injunction. In the said proceedings, respondent Nos.3 to 10 filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking impleadment as parties to the suit. The trial Court allowed the said application under the impugned order, which is assailed in the present petition by the petitioner/plaintiff. 4. It is to be noticed that the proposed applicants, in affidavit filed in support of the impleading application, have clearly stated that defendant Nos.1 and 2, who raised the counterclaim have no right whatsoever over the suit schedule property. It is further contended that their father Late G.H.Bangera, had acquired the property in question under a registered sale deed dated 16.04.1971 and thereafter he had not sold any property. It is also contended that litigations between the parties are already pending in OS.No.26143/2020 and OS.No.326/2021, wherein both the impleading applicants and the defendants are parties. Considering the said aspect and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29953 W.P. No.1787/2022 taking note of the fact that the applicants are claiming right under late G.H.Bangera, the trial Court allowed the application for impleadment. It is also to be noticed that the similar application was filed by the present applicants in a suit in OS.No.5528/2020 and OS.No.5437/2020. In the said suits also the impleading application was allowed, which were challenged by the petitioners therein in WP.No.1281/2022 and WP.No.1353/2022. This Court, vide order dated 11.03.2022, upheld the orders of impleadment. Taking note of the reasoning of the trial Court and the order of this Court, I am of the view that there is no error in the impugned order calling for interference in the present petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5