Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 29851 (KAR)

SMT GEETHA v. SRI JAGADISH

WP/7802/2026 · 2026-07-08

Lalitha Kanneganti

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34775 WP No. 7802 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 7802 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. GEETHA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, D/O CHELUVAIAH, R/AT KHATA NO.3/3, WARD NO.129, MALLATHAHALLI VILLAGE, YESWANTHAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560 056. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.C.M.NAGABUSHANA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. JAGADISH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, S/O GANGAPPA, R/AT NO.6, 11TH CROSS, RAMAKRISHNAIAH LAYOUT, MALAGALA MAIN ROAD, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 091. 2. SRI. CHELUVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFF, R/AT KHATA NO.3/3, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34775 WP No. 7802 of 2026 WARD NO.129, MALLATHAHALLI VILLAGE, YESWANTHAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560 056. 3. NGEF EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO.215, 1ST FLOOR, TENT ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE - 560 026. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. SRI. K. RENUKA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O SRI. K.R.KRISHNAIAH, R/AT NO.6, 13TH MAIN, MPM LAYOUT, MALLATHAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 056. 5. SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR PATHI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O SRI. P. KRISHNAMURTHY, 6. SMT.APARNA P., AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, W/O PRAVEEN KUMAR PATHI, BOTH ARE R/AT NO.25, NGEF LAYOUT, MALLATHAHALLI, YESWANTHAPURA NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 056. 7. SRI. S. KARTHIK, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O SRI. SATHYA MURTHY, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34775 WP No. 7802 of 2026 8. SMT. SREDEVI RAVIKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, W/O S. KARTHIK, BOTH ARE R/AT NO.24, BBMP KAHTA NO.24/2, NGEF LAYOUT, MALLATHAHALLI, YESWANTHAPURA NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 056. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.P.BHUVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI.RAVISHANKAR S., ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R8; R1 IS SERVED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12-01-2026 PASSED ON I.A. NO.2/2025 BY THE LEARNED JUDGE OF TRAIL COURT IN O.S. NO.8252/2015 AT ANNEXURE G ON THE FILE OF XXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH NO.23) BENGALURU, THEREBY DISMISS THE APPLICATION I.A. NO.2/2025 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 5 TO 9 IN O.S. 8252/2015 ON THE FILE OF XXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH NO.23) BENGALURU AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34775 WP No. 7802 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 12.01.2026 passed in I.A. No. II/2025 in O.S. No. 8252/2015 by the XXV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-23), defendant No. 3/petitioner is before this Court. 2. The respondents herein have filed suit for a permanent injunction and have also sought a mandatory injunction. The plaintiff's case is that defendants No. 1 and 3 have encroached upon the road and carried out construction. Initially, the suit was filed against defendant No. 1. Later, defendant No. 1 executed a release deed in favour of defendant No. 3, and defendant No. 3 was also impleaded in the suit. The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 executed a Gift Deed in favour of his daughter, who has been impleaded as plaintiff No. 2 by way of the proceedings. Now, the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 has filed an application under Order I Rule 10 to implead the neighbour, according to him, because of the encroachment made by defendant No.3, they are also affected. Hence, they may be permitted to come on record as the defendants. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34775 WP No. 7802 of 2026 3. The trial court, by the impugned order, has allowed the said application, observing that in view of the above facts of the case and the given circumstances, and as an easementary right of the applicants is also involved, it will help the court to adjudicate the dispute once for all. Accordingly, the application has been allowed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants submits that the plaintiff has filed the suit seeking a mandatory injunction and a permanent injunction against defendants Nos. 1 to 3. The impleaded applicants are neither proper nor necessary parties to the dispute between the parties. It is submitted that the Court has allowed this application without any basis, and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the Court rightly held that the grievance of the petitioner, the impleaded applicants and the plaintiff is one and the same, and that the presence of the petitioner in the suit will help the Court adjudicate the dispute more effectively, and accordingly allowed the application. There are no grounds to interfere. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34775 WP No. 7802 of 2026 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the material on record. The suit seeks both a bare injunction and a mandatory injunction. The dispute is necessarily between the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 to 3. According to the petitioner, proposed party has a grievance against the other defendants. Now, the co-defendant is setting up a dispute against the other defendants. The suit was filed in the year 2015. To decide the dispute between the parties, that is, the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 and 3, the presence of the impleaded applicant is not necessary. He is neither a proper nor a necessary party, and the trial court, without considering these aspects and even without giving proper reasoning, has allowed the application. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. The order dated 12.01.2026 passed on I.A.No.II/2025 in O.S.No.8252/2015 by the XXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, (CCH No.23), Bengaluru is set aside. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34775 WP No. 7802 of 2026 ii. This order will not preclude the impeading applicant from agitating his rights before the competent authority. iii. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. iv. Pending I.As if any, in the petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE PSJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0