- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33128 W.P. No.14563/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.14563/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. B.L. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA S/O C.R. LAKSHMAIAH AGED 67 YEARS R/AT. ADARSH NAGAR WARD NO 9, PAVAGADA TOWN TUMKURU DISTRICT 561202. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M. ERAPPA REDDY, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. B.L. LOKESH S/O LATE BOMMA LINGAPPA AGED 39 YEARS R/AT. MEGALAPALYA VILLAGE Y N KOSAKOTE HOBLI PAVAGADA TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT 572141. 2. SMT. K.M. NAGAMANI W/O B.L. LOKSH AGED 29 YEARS R/AT MEGALAPALYA VILLAGE Y N KOSAKOTE HOBLI PAVAGADA TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT 572141. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33128 W.P. No.14563/2022 3. SRI. B.L. VISHWANATHA S/O LATE BOMMA LINGAPPA AGED 41 YEARS R/AT MEGALAPALYA VILLAGE Y N KOSAKOTE HOBLI PAVAGADA TALUK TUMKURU DSITRICT 572141. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R1 & R2 ARE D/W V/O/DTD:22.02.2023 R3 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT PAVAGADA, ON 30.6.2022 ON IA NO.II IN O.S.NO.97/2021 AS PER ANNEXURE-E. TO AWARD COSTS OF THIS PETITION & 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 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 30.06.2022 passed on I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.97/2021 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Pavagada (for short, ‘the trial Court’). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33128 W.P. No.14563/2022 2. Heard Sri.M.Erappa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice to respondent Nos.1 and 2 is dispensed with vide order dated 22.02.2023. Though notice is served on respondent No.3, there is no representation. 3. The petitioner-plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.97/2021 seeking the relief of specific performance against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 – defendant Nos.1 and 2 claiming that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 have executed the registered agreement of sale dated 30.09.2019. In the said suit, Sri.B.L.Vishwanatha, the brother of respondent No.1, has filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the CPC to implead himself as defendant in the suit. The said application was opposed by the petitioner-plaintiff. The trial Court under the impugned order allowed the application on the ground that the respondent No.1 and respondent No.3 are brothers and the properties are - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33128 W.P. No.14563/2022 divided among them on 13.12.2019, hence, respondent No.3 is a necessary and proper party to the suit. 4. It is required to be noticed that the suit is for the specific performance of the contract dated 30.09.2019 and a third party to the contract cannot be impleaded in the said suit. The said view is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal and others1. In the case on hand, admittedly, respondent No.3 alleges that there is a registered partition between respondent No.1 and respondent No 3 on 13.12.2019 which is admittedly after the registered agreement between the petitioner and the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Hence, in my considered view, the respondent No.3, who is a third party to the agreement, cannot be impleaded in the suit for specific performance of contract. 1 AIR 2005 SC 2813 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33128 W.P. No.14563/2022 5. Hence, in view of the preceding analysis, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 30.06.2022 passed on I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.97/2021 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Pavagada, is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.2 filed by respondent No.3 herein under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC before the trial Court is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29