- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010317102020 NC: 2026:KHC:36734 WP No. 3098 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.3098 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: AJITH H. V. S/O. VIJAYADEVA H. N. AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT K. C. ROAD THIRTHAHALLI TOWN THIRTHAHALLI - 577 432 …PETITIONER (BY SRI ASHWATH C. M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. LAURENCE FERNANDES S/O. LATE BOBBY FERNANDES AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT BALEBAILU THIRTHAHALLI TOWN THIRTHAHALLI-577 432 2. RAMACHAR S/O. LATE KRISHNACHAR AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS R/AT NAMMA NALANDA VIDYAPEETA BACHINAKODLU, KALYANA POST KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI-576 230 Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010317102020 NC: 2026:KHC:36734 WP No. 3098 of 2021 3. RAJASHEKARA S/O. RAMACHAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT SHREE DURGA JEWELERS NEAR J. K. TOWER, MAIN ROAD KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI-576 201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRITHVIRAJ B. N., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3 SRI RAKSHITH JOIS Y. P., ADVOCATE FOR R-1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.02.2020 ON I.A.NO.8 FILED UNDER ORDER I RULE10(2) OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. AT THIRTHAHALLI IN O.S.NO.179/2014 ANNEXURE-A. 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 - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010317102020 NC: 2026:KHC:36734 WP No. 3098 of 2021 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 15.02.2020 passed on IA No.8 in OS.No.179/2014 by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Thirthahalli (for short the 'Trial Court'). 2. Heard Sri.Ashwath.C.M learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri.Rakshith Jois.Y.P learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri.Prithviraj.B.N learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. Respondent No.1 had filed OS.No.179/2014 seeking relief of mandatory injunction to repair dilapidated condition of the common wall and in case, if the defendant failed to comply the order, then the costs of the same shall be recovered from the defendant. 4. The plaintiff had also sought the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant for not to damage the roof of the Schedule 'C' property and also not to interfere with the plaintiff's suit schedule property. In - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010317102020 NC: 2026:KHC:36734 WP No. 3098 of 2021 the said suit, plaintiff filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking to implead the proposed defendant No.3 who is the petitioner herein. The said application was opposed by the petitioner. The trial Court under the impugned order allowed the application. It is to be noticed that the suit filed by the respondent No.1 is on 04.07.2014 and during the pendency of the said suit, respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are the defendants in the suit, have alienated the suit schedule property in favour of the proposed defendant No.3-petitioner herein, vide registered sale deed dated 10.04.2019. Admittedly, the sale is during the pendency of the said suit. 5. Considering the said aspect and taking note of the nature of relief sought in the plaint, the trial Court has recorded the reason that the petitioner is necessary and proper party to adjudicate the suit and decide the dispute in the suit. The trial Court has also recorded the finding - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010317102020 NC: 2026:KHC:36734 WP No. 3098 of 2021 that non-impleadment of the petitioner would lead to multiplicity of the proceedings, I do not find any error in the said findings. It would be useful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AMIT KUMAR SHAW AND ANOTHER vs. FARIDA KHATOON AND ANOTHER1, wherein para 14 reads as under: "14. An alienee pendente lite is bound by the final decree that may be passed in the suit. Such an alienee can be brought on record both under this rule as also under Order 1 Rule 10. Since under the doctrine of lis pendens a decree passed in the suit during the pendency of which a transfer is made binds the transferee, his application to be brought on record should ordinarily be allowed." 6. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that the object of Order I Rule 10 of IPC is to discourage a contest of plea on technical grounds and to save the honest and bonafide litigants. As in the case on hand, the defendant Nos.1 & 2 have sold the property during the pendency of the said suit and in that view of the matter, 1 2005 11 SCC 403 - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010317102020 NC: 2026:KHC:36734 WP No. 3098 of 2021 the plaintiff cannot be compelled to file a separate suit against the buyer. Hence, I am of the view that the trial Court was fully justified in allowing the application. The writ petition being devoid of merit, same is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE DS CT:VC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19