- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010220272026 NC: 2026:KHC:37044 WP No. 9714 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 9714 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. ARATHI KIRAN W/O. SRI. M.S.KIRAN, PRESENTLY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 396/1, KRISHNA VILAS ROAD, DEVARAJA MOHALLA, MYSURU -570 001 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DEVARAJU H.V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER MYSURU CITY CORPORATION, SAYYAJI RAO ROAD, MYSURU -570 001 2. ZONAL COMMISSIONER ZONAL OFFICE-3, MYSURU CITY CORPORATION, SHARADADEVI NAGARA, MYSURU - 570 022 3. SMT.N.K.NAGALAKSHMI W/O. LATE. H.S. SHANKARALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RESIDING AT S. NO. 85, SAHUKAR CHENNAIAH ROAD, 4TH STAGE, T.K. LAYOUT, KUVEMPUNAGER, ® Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010220272026 NC: 2026:KHC:37044 WP No. 9714 of 2026 MYSURU - 570 009 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.AJAY KUDKOL, ADVOCATE A/W SRI.SHASHANK PADIYAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR CONNECTED RECORDS IN RESPECT OF ORDER, DATED 28/01/2026 PASSED ON I.A. FILED IN M.A. NO. 43/2025 AT ANNEXURE E PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MYSURU. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 15.06.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CAV ORDER The petitioner is before this Court questioning the order dated 28.01.2026 passed on I.A under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC in M.A.No.43/2025 on the file of III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mysuru. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner of the property bearing Door No.20, New No.CH-2, situated at 3rd Cross, 8th Main Saraswathipuram, Chamaraja Mohalla, Mysore. It is the case that after dismantling the existing old building, the plan was obtained for construction of a residential house and while constructing the residential - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010220272026 NC: 2026:KHC:37044 WP No. 9714 of 2026 building, respondent no.1 passed an order under Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 and the said order has been challenged in M.A.No.43/2025 on the file of 3rd Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysore. In that, the impleaded applicant, i.e., the third respondent herein, has filed an application seeking to implead himself in the pending proceedings. That came to be allowed by the order impugned. 3. The trial Court, while allowing the application, observed that the petitioner herein has questioned a provisional order dated 16.06.2025 wherein the respondent has directed the appellant to remove alleged unauthorised construction, constructed in violation of the sanctioned plan and license. The matter is under scrutiny before the court. The application is filed to implead the applicant as she is the adjoining owner and her right is affected due to construction by the petitioner. The court has observed that the appellant is putting up construction. The said fact is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the proposed respondent No.3/ applicant is the owner of the adjoining property. It is also a fact that the respondent has initiated proceedings against the appellant. The - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010220272026 NC: 2026:KHC:37044 WP No. 9714 of 2026 said proceeding is under scrutiny, and there is a contest between the appellant and respondent therein with respect to the subject matter. Now it is under scrutiny whether the construction by the appellant is proper in accordance with the provisions. But, since the question involved is with regard to the construction of the building, the adjoining owner is a necessary party to the proceedings, as the applicant may substantiate the fact regarding implications of the construction, and if any right is being violated, the same has to be adjudicated. It is also to be noted that, as per the say of the applicant, she has lodged a complaint before the authority about the construction by the petitioner. On her complaint, the respondent has initiated proceedings. It is also a fact that the legality and correctness of the order by the respondent needs to be analysed. But the say of the adjoining owner/applicant is also to be heard. Under the given facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is a proper and necessary party to the proceedings, and accordingly the trial Court has allowed the application. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this Court. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010220272026 NC: 2026:KHC:37044 WP No. 9714 of 2026 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that when the proceedings are between the Municipal Corporation and the petitioner herein, to confirm whether the construction that is made by the petitioner is as per the sanctioned plan or not, the presence of the impleaded applicant is not necessary. This aspect was not appreciated by the Court. He relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Mohammed Rafiq Vs. The Commissioner, Hubli Dharwad Municipal Corporation, arising out of W.A.No.100071/2018 dated 28.11.2018. He has relied on paragraph No.17 which reads as follows: “17. It has to be borne in mind that in an appeal under Section 321 of the Act, the right, title and interest of respondent No.4 vis-à-vis his property would not be considered. The correctness of the statutory power exercised by the respondent Corporation and in order to ascertain as to whether there is any infraction of the said Section by the appellant herein or the person who is putting up the construction or reconstruction is the subject matter of the appeal. The grievance that respondent No.4 may have against the appellant herein vis-à- vis his property rights is not the subject of the appeal before the District Court. Therefore, the impleadment of respondent No.4 in the appeal is unwarranted.” - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010220272026 NC: 2026:KHC:37044 WP No. 9714 of 2026 5. Relying on this, it is submitted that the impleadment of the complainant before the Municipality is not necessary in the pending proceedings. The trial Court has failed to consider all these facts and has allowed the I.A and the order impugned needs to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/implead applicant submits that, after the order passed in Mohammed Rafiq referred supra, the very same learned Judge who was heading the Bench has passed another order in K.S Jagadish Reddy Vs. Smt. Susheela and another arising out of W.A.No.460/2020 C/w 482/2020 and 484/2020 dated 12.10.2020. In that, relying on a Supreme Court Judgment, the Court has held that the complainant can be treated as an intervenor. He relied on paragraph Nos.12, 13 and 14 which read as follows: “12. We have perused the judgments of the Coordinate Bench of this Court, which have been referred to by the respective parties. While in the case of Mohammed Rafiq (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court did not permit impleadment and the application seeking impleadment was dismissed by allowing the appeal, in the case of Shantesh Gureddi another Co- ordinate Bench permitted the impleadment. However, Sri Shantesh Gureedi, carried the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010220272026 NC: 2026:KHC:37044 WP No. 9714 of 2026 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court by its order dated 05/09/2019 modified the order of impleadment and permitted the impleading parties to participate in the proceedings before the Tribunal as interveners. 13. In the said circumstances, despite there being contrary judgments passed by the two Division Benches of this Court referred to supra, there being an order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court permitting such parties, who are complainants, to participate in the proceedings before the Tribunal as interveners, we think it just and proper to follow the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 05/09/2019 in the case of Shantesh Gureddi, in SLP.Nos.24083-87/2017, without entering into the correctness or otherwise of the judgments in the aforesaid cases. 14. In the circumstances, the impugned orders of the learned Single Judge is modified to the extent of permitting first respondent herein to participate in the appellate proceedings initiated before the Tribunal as an intervener, in each of the three appeals and not as a party respondent. The appeals are allowed in part in the aforesaid terms.” 7. He relied on another judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Shivaprasad Navada Vs. Leonard Fernandes and others arising out of W.P.No.18150/2018. He relied on paragraph No.6 which reads as follows: “6. It is not in dispute that the proceedings before the Tribunal have emanated pursuant to notices issued by the BBMP under Section 321 of the KMC Act and such - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010220272026 NC: 2026:KHC:37044 WP No. 9714 of 2026 notices were issued against the owner of the property pursuant to a complaint registered by the petitioner. This fact not being in dispute, the Tribunal ought to have permitted the petitioner to come on record as a party respondent, particularly, in the light of the observations made by several Co-ordinate benches of this Court (supra), that the defence of the BBMP before the Tribunal is sometimes doubtful and it is the complainant who should be heard in the matter.” 8. It is submitted that in the above case, the Court has held that the complainant is a proper and necessary party and he can be impleaded in the proceedings. 9. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. There is no doubt that the two Division Benches have taken different views. In W.A.No.100071/2018 referred supra, the Court held that the complainant is not a proper and necessary party. Later, the Division Bench, relying on the Supreme Court judgment, held that he can be impleaded as an intervener. There is no dispute that the proceedings were initiated by the Municipality basing on the complaint lodged by the proposed party. Though the statutory proceedings were ultimately issued by the Municipal Authority, the factual foundation for such action emanated from - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010220272026 NC: 2026:KHC:37044 WP No. 9714 of 2026 the complaint submitted by the proposed party. The Municipal Authority has to justify its action independently in accordance with law. Equally, it cannot be said that the complainant is a complete stranger to the proceedings. If the challenge to the municipal action of the authority by the petitioner is in his favour, the complaint made by the impleading applicant would be ineffective, and the very purpose for which he invoked the statutory mechanism would stand frustrated. If the proposed party is not seeking to enlarge the scope of the suit or to introduce any independent cause of action, his participation is confined to supporting the validity of the proceedings initiated on the basis of his complaint. Such participation would assist the Court in arriving at a just conclusion. The distinction between a proper and unnecessary party is no more res- integra. Even if an order can technically be passed in the absence of the complainant, his presence would facilitate effective adjudication of the controversy and obviate future litigation. Therefore, he answers the definition of a Proper Party. The trial Court has considered this aspect, exercised the jurisdiction vested in it, and allowed an application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC. - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010220272026 NC: 2026:KHC:37044 WP No. 9714 of 2026 10. The Division Bench in W.A.No.460/2020 C/w 482/2020 and 484/2020, referred supra, considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, has held that he can be impleaded as an intervener. Learned counsel for respondent/impleading applicant submits that the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.18150/2018 referred supra, has held that he can be impleaded as a respondent to the suit. This Court is not able to appreciate the said submission made by the petitioner, and in the considered opinion of the Court, the petitioner can be impleaded in the suit as an intervener. As far as the order passed by the Court is concerned, there is no jurisdictional error or material irregularity warranting interference by this Court exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. At the same time, the impleadment of the applicant will not confer upon him a status higher than an intervener. His participation in the proceedings is only for the limited purpose of supporting the municipal proceedings and shall not be permitted to travel beyond the scope of the controversies involved in the suit or to introduce issues alien thereto. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010220272026 NC: 2026:KHC:37044 WP No. 9714 of 2026 ORDER i. This Court do not find any reasons to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. ii. It is clarified that the impleading respondent shall participate in the proceedings only as an intervener/proper party in support of the municipal proceedings impugned in the suit and shall not be entitled to enlarge the scope of the litigation or to claim any independent relief. iii. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. iv. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4