- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010507222023 NC: 2026:KHC:38031 W.P. No.21756/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.21756/2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: BALAKRISHNA MAHARAJ AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS S/O RAMNAIK @ RAMUSAD R/O SRI. SRI. SEVABHAYA JANMASTHANA SURAGONDANAKOPPA, CHINNIKATTE VILL. HONNALI TALUK-577217 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577217. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GURUPRASAD HEGDE, ADV., FOR SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADV.,) AND: 1. K. ROOPLANAIK S/O KHEERYANAIKA AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS R/O RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560010. 2. GOVINDANAIKA S/O THUKKYANAIKA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/O UJJINAPURA HONNALI TALUK-577 217 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 3. DR. L. ESHWAANAIK S/O LACHANAIKA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010507222023 NC: 2026:KHC:38031 W.P. No.21756/2023 R/O UJJINAPURA HONNALI TALUK-577 217 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 4. DR. VASUDEVANAIK S/O HEERANAIK AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/O HOSANAGARA THANDA CHANNAGIRI TALUK-577213 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 5. B.C. YENKANAIKA S/O PATHRNAIK AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/O BIDARAHALLI CHINNIKATTE POST HONNALLI TALUK-577217 DAVANGERE DISTRICT. 6. SEVYA NAIK S/O BHEEM NAIK AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS PRIEST, SANTHA SEVALAL MAHAMUTT SURAGONDANAKOPPA CHINNIKATTE VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK NOW NYAMTHI TLAUK-577217 DAVANGERE DISTRICT. 7. RAGHAVENDRA NAIK S/O LIMBA NAIK AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS ADVOCATE AND SOCIAL WORKER GENERAL SECRETARY OF SANTA SEVALAL JANMASTHANA MAHAMATHA SAMITHI (R), CHINNIKATTE POST NYAMTHI TALUK - 577217 R/O DODDA OBAGGIHALLI POST. KADLEBALU DAVANGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010507222023 NC: 2026:KHC:38031 W.P. No.21756/2023 (BY SRI. M.V. HIREMATH, ADV., FOR R1, R3 TO R7 V/O/DTD:09.10.2023, NOTICE TO R2, R4 & R5 ARE D/W) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 27.06.2023 PASSED BY THE COURT OF LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HONNALI ON I.A.NO.8 IN O.S.NO.272/2013 PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-L TO THE WRIT PETITION. REJECT THE APPLICATION MADE BY THE SEVENTH DEFENDANT UNDER IA NO.8 IN O.S.NO.272/2013 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HONNALI & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 27.06.2023 passed on IA.No.8 in OS.No.272/2013 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Honnali (for short 'the trial Court'). 2. Heard Sri.Guruprasad Hegde, learned counsel appearing for Sri.S.V.Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.M.V.Hiremath, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1, 3 to 7 and meticulously perused the material available on record. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010507222023 NC: 2026:KHC:38031 W.P. No.21756/2023 3. The petitioner is plaintiff No.2 in OS.No.272/2013, filed for declaration that plaintiff No.2 is the religious head and Swamiji of the community at Sooragondanakoppa Village and also sought relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants etc., from interfering in any manner with the daily poojas and routine work of plaintiff No.2 in discharging his duties as Swamiji of the community by granting perpetual injunction. In the said suit, defendant Nos.3 and 5 filed their written statements. Thereafter, respondent No.7 filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') seeking to be impleaded as defendant No.7. The said application was opposed by plaintiff No.2/petitioner. However, the trial Court, under the impugned order allowed the application. 4. A perusal of the affidavit accompanying the application indicates that respondent No.7 claims to be the - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010507222023 NC: 2026:KHC:38031 W.P. No.21756/2023 General Secretary of Santha Sevalal Jnamasthana Mahamatha Samithi (Regd.). It is averred that the said society was registered on 30.07.2014 and the society has a Memorandum of Association, setting out the objective of developing the temple etc. The affidavit further indicates that plaintiff No.2 is not the head of the Banjara Community or the Swamiji of the community of Sooragondanakoppa Village, that he is not a disciple of the said community, and that he is not entitled to perform the poojas as well. It is further averred that the proposed defendant No.7 is a necessary and proper party to the suit. 5. It is required to be noticed that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is for relief of declaration originally against defendant Nos.1 to 5 and defendant No.6 later got impleaded. The suit is on the specific assertion that plaintiff No.2 is the Swamiji of a particular community and is performing a pooja of a deity. It is further to be noticed - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010507222023 NC: 2026:KHC:38031 W.P. No.21756/2023 that the proposed defendant No.7 is claiming to be a Secretary of a society which was admittedly registered after the institution of the suit and the assertion of the proposed defendant No.7 that plaintiff No.2 is not the head of the community and is not entitled to perform any poojas cannot, by itself, be considered at the instance of the proposed defendant. The proposed defendant No.7 is a third party to the relief sought by the plaintiffs in OS.No.272/2013 against the specified defendants. It would be useful to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudhamayee Pattnaik and Others v. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo and Others1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as a defendant against the wishes of the plaintiff. 6. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and considering the 1 AIR 2022 SC 4304 - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010507222023 NC: 2026:KHC:38031 W.P. No.21756/2023 facts and circumstances of the case as per the settled position of law, the plaintiff is domius litis. Unless Court suo moto directs to join any other person not party to the suit for effective decree and for proper adjudication as per Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC, nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs. I am of the view that the trial Court has committed a grave error in allowing the impleading application, as the proposed defendant No.7 is neither a necessary nor a proper party to decide the lis between the parties in the suit. Hence, for the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 27.06.2023 passed on IA.No.8 in OS.No.272/2013 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Honnali is hereby set aside. Consequently, IA.No.8 is rejected. - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010507222023 NC: 2026:KHC:38031 W.P. No.21756/2023 iii. It is needless to observe that it is open for the proposed defendant No.7 to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17