- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19451 WP No. 2950 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.2950 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI MAHADEVA RAO S/O EAROJI RAO AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.14 2ND MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS BYRASANDRA, JAYANAGARA 1ST BLOCK (EAST) BEHIND ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE BANGALORE-11. 2. SRI CHANDRASHEKAR S/O PERUMAL AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.129 1ST CROSS, MARKAM ROAD ASHOKA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560050. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.B. TOTAD.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA W/O LATE PAPA REDDY D/O LATE NANJUNDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS 2. SRI CHANDRA REDDY S/O LATE PAPA REDDY Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19451 WP No. 2950 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF CHIKKATHIMMASANDRA VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT-562125. 3. M/S APEX INFRA A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFICE AT NO.G-04 NO.15, KATHA NO.16/9A VINTAGE REGENCY 2ND MAIN ROAD, P K M LAYOUT YELLUKUNTE HOSAPALYA BANGALORE-560 068 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI G SURESH S/O GANGADHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.82,70TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010. 4. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 5. SRI PRAKASH S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 6. SMT. SUVARNAMMA D/O LATE MUNISWAMAPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 6 ARE R/AT CHIKKANAGAMANGALA VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI HUSKUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT-560099. SMT. MUNIYELLAMMA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19451 WP No. 2950 of 2025 7. W/O LATE MUNIYELLAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS SMT. NAGAMMA W/O LATE GOPALAPPA D/O LATE MUNIYELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT DENKANIKOTE TALUK KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT TAMILNADU-635107. 8. SMT. KAVERAMMA D/O MUNIYELLAPPA W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDINGAT DENKANIKOTE TALUK KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT TAMILNADU-635107. 9. SMT. GOWRAMMA D/O MUNIYELLAPPA W/O LATE SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT ADIGARAKALLAHALLI VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT-562125. 10. SRI SHANKARAPPA S/O MUNIYELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 11. SRI SHIVAPPA S/O MUNIYELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 12. SRI NEELAKANTAIAH S/O MUNIYELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 13. SMT. ALLELLAMMA W/O MUNIRAMAIAH D/O MUNIYELLAPA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19451 WP No. 2950 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.10 TO 13 ARE R/AT CHIKKANAGAMANGALA VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT-562125. 14. SMT. CHINNAMMA W/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS 15. SRI MUNIVENKATAPPA S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 16. SMT. MARIYAMMA D/O LATE GANESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 17. SMT. LAKSHMI D/O LATE GANESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 18. SMT. SARASWATHI D/O LATE GANESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 19. SMT. BHAGYA D/O LATE GANESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.14 TO 19 ARE R/AT CHIKKANAGAMANGALA VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI, HUSKUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT-562125. 20. YASHODAMMA D/O LATE DODDA ANNAIAPPA W/O LATE PUTTANNA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS CHIKKANAGAMANGALA VILLAGE - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19451 WP No. 2950 of 2025 SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT-562125. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SANGAMESH R.B., ADVOCATE FOR R3; R14 - SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT ANEKAL, IN O.S.NO.69/2016 DATED 23.03.2023 ON IA NO.14 (WRONGLY SHOWN AS IA NO.15) FOR IMPLEADING THE R-3 AS PLAINTIFF NO.3 IN THE SUIT, UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AT ANNEXURE-G. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER 1. In this writ petition, the petitioners-defendant Nos.11 and 13 have called in question the order dated 23.03.2023 passed on I.A.No.14 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ for short) in O.S.No.69/2016, whereby the said application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC by the proposed plaintiff (impleading applicant) has been allowed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19451 WP No. 2950 of 2025 2. The plaintiffs-respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed a suit for the relief of declaration and injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs sold the suit schedule property in favour of the impleading applicant, i.e., respondent No.3 herein. Thereafter, the impleading applicant filed I.A.No.14 under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to be impleaded as a plaintiff, which came to be allowed by impugned order dated 23.03.2023. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos.11 and 13 have approached this Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the impleading applicant is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit. He further submitted that the property was purchased during the pendency of the suit and, therefore, the transaction is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. He further contended that there is no allegation of collusion between the plaintiffs and the defendants. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in the case of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19451 WP No. 2950 of 2025 K.N.ASWATHNARAYANA SETTY AND ORS. vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. reported in (2014) 15 SCC 394. He further submitted that no opportunity of being heard was given to the defendants before passing the impugned order on the said application filed by the impleading applicant. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the impleading applicant contended that, since the applicant has purchased the property from the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have no objection to the impleadment, the Trial Court has rightly allowed the application. He further contended that the petitioners themselves had filed an application to implead the applicant as a party (defendant) to the suit and, therefore, they cannot now oppose the impleadment. It is also contended that the Trial Court has exercised its discretionary power under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC in allowing the application. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the impleading applicant. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19451 WP No. 2950 of 2025 6. It is not in dispute that, during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs sold the suit schedule property in favour of the impleading applicant. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners herein had filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead the applicant as a defendant. 7. The apprehension of the petitioners is that the plaintiffs may not contest the matter and protect the interest of the impleading applicant. However, the power under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC is discretionary, and the Court may add or delete parties if their presence is necessary or not necessary, respectively, for the effective adjudication of the suit. 8. Since the plaintiffs have not objected to the impleadment and the petitioners themselves had sought to implead the applicant as a party, the Trial Court has rightly allowed the application by impleading the applicant as plaintiff No.3. Allowing the application does not cause any prejudice to the defendant Nos.11 and 13-petitioners. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19451 WP No. 2950 of 2025 9. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that there is no error or illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE HA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74