- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30862 WP No. 17068 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 17068 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI NAGARAJ S/O. LATE.GURAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.110, S.T. BED, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 034. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. Y.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. Y.K. NARAYANA SHARMA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M /S ANNABEL BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD REP. BY ITS PARTNERS SRI SRINATH M.S. AND SRI SRINIVAS M. OFFICE AT NO.P-39, BASEMENT, NDSE PAR-II, NEW DELHI - 110 049. 2. IGNECIOUS RAJU SINCE DECEASED BY LRS SMT. DIVYA JYOTHI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, W/O LATE IGNECIOUS RAJU, 3. SRI ARUL VINCENT RAJ, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, S/O LATE IGNECIOUS RAJU, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30862 WP No. 17068 of 2026 4. SRI ARUL AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, S/O LATE IGNECIOUS RAJU, RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO.3374/1, ARUL RESIDENCY, D.C. HALL ROAD, BEGUR VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 068. 5. SMT. ANJINAMMA, SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE SRI DEVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE ANNAYAPPA, 6. KUM. ASWINI, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, D/O SRI DEVARAJ, 7. KUM. ANUSHA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, D/O SRI DEVARAJ, RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT NO.1207, KORAMASHETTY PALYA, BEGUR VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 068 8. SRI SATHARAJ, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O SRI ANTHONYSWAMY, RESIDING AT DANDU BEEDI, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30862 WP No. 17068 of 2026 BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 068 9. SRI AZAM, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O LATE MOULA SAB, RESIDING AT NEAR MASJID, BEGUR VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 068 10. SMT. KASTHURI, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, W/O. SRI G. KRISHNA REDDY RESIDING AT NO.748, 8TH MAIN, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 034. 11. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, B.D.A. OFFICES, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560 020., 12. SRI. GAJENDRA S/O LATE GURAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.110, S.T. BED, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 034. 13. WESTEND HEIGHTS CONDOMINIUM APARTMENT OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION NO.356/1/1, DLF TOWN, AKSHAYNAGAR, BEGUR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 068. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30862 WP No. 17068 of 2026 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI. KARTHIKEYA KHANNA 14. SRI. SOUMITHRI MUTHEGERE, S/O SRI SITHARAMA IYENGER M N AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT C3171, WESTEND HEIGHTS DLF NEW TOWN BEGUR, BANGALORE - 560 068. 15. SRI. SHREE BALAJI SAMPATH, S/O. SRI. H.K. SAMPATH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT B5141, WESTEND HEIGHTS DLF NEW TOWN BEGUR, BANGALORE - 560 068 16. SRI. BHARATH M.D., S/O. SRI DASANNA GOWDA M.G., AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT B1096, WESTEND HEIGHTS DLF NEW TOWN BEGUR, BANGALORE - 560 068. 17. SRI. PALAK DILIPKUMAR SHAH, S/O. SRI DILIPKUMAR SHAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT C2142, WESTEND HEIGHTS DLF NEW TOWN BEGUR, BANGALORE - 560 068 18. SRI. CHINOY GUPTA, S/O. SIR. RAVINDRA PRAKASH GUPTA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT C3154, WESTEND HEIGHTS - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30862 WP No. 17068 of 2026 DLF NEW TOWN BEGUR, BANGALORE - 560 068. …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO WHEREFORE, THE PETITIONER RESPECTFULLY PRAYS THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO PASS NECESSARY ORDERS AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR PASS OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.04.2026 PASSED ON 1.A. NO.11 IN O.S. NO.451/2016 BY THE COURT OF 7TH ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE-G AND BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE SAID APPLICATION, OR PASS OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS OR ISSUE NECESSARY DIRECTIONS AS DEEMED FIT BY THIS HON'BLE COURT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order on IA No.11 passed in O.S.No.451/2016 by the 7th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, the petitioner is before this Court. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner herein, who is the plaintiff in the suit, has filed OS No. 451/2016. In the suit schedule property, there is an apartment named as - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30862 WP No. 17068 of 2026 Westend Heights and on behalf of the apartment, a Welfare Association called the Westend Heights Condominium Apartment Owners Welfare Association. The Secretary of the Association has filed an application on behalf of the said apartment to implead the Welfare Association as a defendant to the suit. 3. It is their case that they have purchased the flats from defendant No.1/respondent No.1, as such, if any order is passed in the suit, as they are the affected parties and the proper and necessary parties for adjudication of the dispute, as they have sold the property, the defendant will not evince any interest in the litigation. Hence, they have filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC. The Trial Court, by order impugned, had allowed the said IA. While allowing the IA, the Trial Court has observed that from the photographs furnished by the plaintiff i.e. Ex.P12 and Ex.P13, the Court can notice that apartments are constructed. Certainly, as per the records, there are constructions, where, as per the applicant, they are the representatives of the association, styled as Westend Heights Condominium Apartment Owners Welfare Association. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30862 WP No. 17068 of 2026 Since apartments and several flats were constructed, the presence of the applicants was necessary, as several sale deeds existed. The plaintiffs, who are claiming title to the suit schedule property and also seeking hand over of possession, have to prove the same and also that the deeds are not binding on them. Certainly, if the association and their representative are permitted to come on record, no hardship will be caused to the plaintiff. It also helps the Court to come to proper and effective conclusion. Accordingly, the Trial Court allowed the IA. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the applicants are not the necessary parties to the suit, and the builder has already been arrayed as defendant No.1. The petitioner has filed an earlier suit in the year 2005 and the present suit is filed in the year 2016. During the pendency of the proceedings, they have purchased the flats and it is hit by lis pendency and their presence is not necessary to adjudicate the dispute involved in the case. Now by impleading these applicants, it would amount to enlarging the scope of the suit and further unnecessary delay will be caused. It is submitted that the Trial Court was not right in allowing the IA and the order needs to be set aside. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30862 WP No. 17068 of 2026 5. Having heard the counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The suit is filed for declaration and seeking recovery of possession. Admittedly, the applicant society is in possession of the apartment which was constructed by the first defendant. The Trial Court has rightly observed that as the plaintiff is seeking the relief of recovery of possession, if the applicants are impleaded, no prejudice will be caused and, in fact, it would facilitate the Court to adjudicate the dispute in an effective manner. This Court finds no infirmity with the order impugned and this Court do not find any merits in the writ petition. 6. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii The suit is of the year 2016. The Trial Court shall not give unnecessary adjournments to the impleaded applicants and other defendants, and shall proceed with the matter. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30862 WP No. 17068 of 2026 iii. Pending IAs, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6