- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010188502026 NC: 2026:KHC:39855 WP No. 8752 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 8752 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. SHREYAS C S/O LATE H. CHANDRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT. NO. 345, 9TH MAIN J.P.NAGAR, DOLLORS LAYOUT BANGALORE 560 078 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VISWANATHA REDDY G.A, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SUNANDAMMA W/O N. KRISHNA REDDY D/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH AND SMT. LAKSHMAKKA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE SEETHARM PALYA MADADEVAPURA POST WHITE FIELD ROAD BANGALORE-560 048 2. SRI. YELLA REDDY S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH AND SMT LAKSHMAKKA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT H.P.ROAD, 2ND CROSS Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010188502026 NC: 2026:KHC:39855 WP No. 8752 of 2026 SINGAIAHNA PALYA MAHADEVAPURA POST BANGALORE-560 048 3. SMT. PAPAMMA W/O LATE KODATHI NAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 93 YEARS 4. SRI. N. MUNIREDDY S/O LATE KODATHI NAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS 5. SRI. N. SRINIVAS REDDY S/O LATE KODATHI NAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS 6. SRI. N. RAMAREDDY S/O LATE KODATHI NAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS 7. SRI. N. HANUMANTHA REDDY S/O LATE KODATHI NAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS 8. SMT. P. LAKSHMI W/O. LATE N. KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS 9. SRI. SUMAN S/O LATE N. KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 10. SMT. SUMITHA D/O LATE N. KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 11. SMT. KANTHAMMA W/O LATE N. GOVINDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010188502026 NC: 2026:KHC:39855 WP No. 8752 of 2026 12. SRI. NARAYANA REDDY D/O LATE N. GOVINDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 13. SMT. NANDA D/O LATE N. GOVINDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 14. SRI. N. NANJAREDDY S/O LATE KODATHI NAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 15. SMT. JAYAMMA D/O LATE KODATHI NAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS 16. SMT. INDRAMMA D/O LATE KODATHI NAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 17. SMT. PARVATHAMMA D/O LATE KODATHI NAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 17 ARE R/AT MYLASANDRA VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560 100 18. SMT. RATHNAMMA D/O LATE MUNITHAYAMMA W/O LATE M.C. NARAYAN REDDY SINCE DEAD SRI. C.N. SAMPANGIRAM REDDY S/O LATE M.C. NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010188502026 NC: 2026:KHC:39855 WP No. 8752 of 2026 19. SRI. APPAIAH REDDY S/O LATE M.C. NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 20. SMT. YELLAMMA @ PAAPA D/O LATE M.C. NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.18 TO 20 ARE R/AT CHENNAPURA VILLAGE N. YELLAVALLI, AVANI HOBLI BELLAM POST, MULBAGILU TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 103 21. SRI. VENKATESH REDDY S/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO. 35, SHARADA 15TH CROSS, 14TH MAIN HSR LAYOUT, 4TH SECTOR BANGALORE-560 034 22. SRI. LOKESH REDDY S/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT MYLASANDRA VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560 100 23. SRI. AMARESH REDDY S/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT DEVARACHIKKANNA HALLI VILLAGE BILEKHAHALLI POST, BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE-560 068 - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010188502026 NC: 2026:KHC:39855 WP No. 8752 of 2026 24. SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI D/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.76, 6TH CROSS BEGUR ROAD, HONGASANDR VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE-560 068 25. SRI. MUNIREDDY S/O LATE MUNITHAYAMMA MAJOR R/AT DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE BILEKAHALLI POST, BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK SINCE DIED SMT. M. BHARATHI D/O LATE MUNI REDDY W/O SRI. RAM REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO. 104, VIGNESH APARTMENT DC HALLI, MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560 068 26. SMT. M. ARATHI D/O LATE MUNI REDDY W/O SRI. VENKATESH REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT. NO. 11, 1ST CROSS NO.22, NARASIMHAIAH LAYOUT RMV 2ND STAGE, LOTTE GOLLAHALLI BANGALORE-560 094 27. SRI. ANIL KUMAR S/O LATE MUNI REDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT. NO. 35, 4TH MAIN JAI BHEEMA NAGAR MADIWALA, BTM 1ST STAGE BANGALORE-560 068 - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010188502026 NC: 2026:KHC:39855 WP No. 8752 of 2026 28. SRI. M. RAMESH REDDY S/O N. MUNI REDDY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 29. KUMARI. R. KALPASHRI D/O RAMESH REDDY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 30. SRI. MANISH REDDY S/O RAMESH REDDY AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 31. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY REDDY S/O MUNI REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 32. SRI. N. ROHAN S/O NARAYANASWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.28 TO 32 ARE R/AT MYLASANDRA VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK 33. SRI. CHANDRA REDDY SINCE DEAD SRI. C. BREJESH REDDY S/O LATE CHANDRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 34. SRI. C. AJAY KUMAR S/O LATE CHANDRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 35. SMT. PAVITHRA D/O LATE CHANDRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010188502026 NC: 2026:KHC:39855 WP No. 8752 of 2026 36. SMT. SHOBA W/O LATE CHANDRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS. 33 TO 36 ARE R/AT. NO. 345, 9TH CROSS DOLLARS COLONY J.P.NAGAR BANGALORE-560 078 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANUPAMA M.V ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R2; R20, R21, R26, R27 AND R34 ARE SERVED; NOTICE TO R3 TO R36 ARE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 25.06.2026) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 12.01.2026 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SECOND ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT VIDE ANNX-A BANGALORE IN O.S NO. 854/2013 TO IMPLEADING HIM AS A PARTY TO THE SUIT ON IA NO. 3. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 25.06.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CAV ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.3/2025 in O.S.No.854/2013 dated 12.01.2026 by II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010188502026 NC: 2026:KHC:39855 WP No. 8752 of 2026 2. The facts of the case are that respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed the suit in O.S.No.854/2013, on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, seeking reliefs of partition and other reliefs. On 01.09.2025, during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC to implead the proposed defendant No. 29 as a proper and necessary party, and the trial court, by the impugned order, dismissed the application. 3. While dismissing the application the trial Court has observed that it is pertinent to note that the plaintiffs have filed the suit for the relief of partition and separate possession. During the stage of further cross-examination of DW.3, the applicant had filed the instant application. It is important to note that the applicant is not a family member of the plaintiff or defendant Nos.1 to 26. The applicant happens to be the donee under the Gift deed executed by defendant No.27. Since the suit is for partition and separate possession, and the suit is at the stage for further cross-examination of DW.3 and as the suit is at the verge of disposal, the trial Court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs have to establish the right over the suit schedule - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010188502026 NC: 2026:KHC:39855 WP No. 8752 of 2026 property. In a suit for partition, the essential requirements are that all the properties of the joint family have to be included and all the family members have to be included. In the instant suit, the applicant herein is not a family member. Under these circumstances, in the absence of the present applicant, an effective adjudication of the case can be made. If the plaintiffs succeed in the suit, then in the FDP proceedings the applicant can be added, and their equities can be worked therein. Therefore, the trial Court is of the opinion that the presence of the applicant is not at all required for effective adjudication of the case on merits and accordingly, the trial Court had dismissed the I.A. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the properties Sy.No.90/1 and Sy.No.90/4, belonged to defendant Nos.27 and 28. They executed a registered Gift Deed in respect of the said properties in favour of the petitioner dated 01.04.2013. The applicant, being the donee under the Gift Deed, made an application to be impleaded as a party to the suit. The trial Court failed to consider that he is a proper and necessary party - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010188502026 NC: 2026:KHC:39855 WP No. 8752 of 2026 to participate in the proceedings and rejected I.A.No.3 without considering that the property in question is also the subject matter of the suit. It is further submitted that defendant Nos.27 and 28, who acquired land measuring 1 acre 32 guntas in Sy.No.90/1 and 23 guntas in Sy.No.90/4 of Mylasandra Village, executed the Gift Deed in favour of the petitioner in the year 2013. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an application to be impleaded as a party to the suit. The trial Court, instead of considering that he is also a necessary party in the suit, reached the wrong conclusion and dismissed the application. It is submitted that all questions, including whether the property is joint family property or not, have to be decided during the course of the trial. It is submitted that the trial Court's observation that his right is to be included in the FDP proceedings is bad in law and needs to be set aside, and the petitioner shall be impleaded as a party to the suit; otherwise, it will cause a lot of hardship to him. 5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are represented by an Advocate. Respondent Nos.20, 21, 26, 27 and 34 are served, - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010188502026 NC: 2026:KHC:39855 WP No. 8752 of 2026 but there is no representation. Notice to respondent Nos.3 to 36 is dispensed with vide order dated 25.06.2026. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that in the suit for partition, where the rights of the members of the family have to be decided, the trial Court has rightly considered all these aspects and has not completely shut the doors to the impleadment of the applicant and has observed that his rights can be adjudicated during the execution proceedings. He further submits that the trial Court was right in dismissing the application, and that the application was filed only to drag on the proceedings. 7. In the light of the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the order passed by the trial Court, the issue that falls for consideration is: “Whether the trial Court was justified in rejecting the application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC solely on the ground that the applicant sought impleadment in the final decree proceedings?” - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010188502026 NC: 2026:KHC:39855 WP No. 8752 of 2026 8. Order I Rule 10 CPC confers upon the Court a discretion to add any person as a party whose presence before the Court is necessary or proper for an effective and complete adjudication of the questions involved in the dispute. The exercise of such discretion must be founded on well-recognised judicial principles and not on extraneous or irrelevant considerations. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw Vs. Farida Khatoon1 held that a transferee pendente lite is a representative in the interest of the transferor. Though not a necessary party in every case, the transferee may be impleaded as a proper party, and his presence may be facilitated for complete and effective adjudication. In the case of Thomson Press (India) Ltd. Vs. Nanak Builders and Investors Pvt. Ltd.2, the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the question of impleadment and held that the pendente lite purchaser can be impleaded by applying the principles underlying Order I Rule 10 of CPC and that such discretion has to be exercised judiciously. 1 (2005) 11 SCC 403 2 (2013) 5 SCC 397 - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010188502026 NC: 2026:KHC:39855 WP No. 8752 of 2026 9. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Judge has not adverted to the nature of the petitioner’s interest, the character of this transfer, or the necessity or propriety of the petitioner’s presence for effective adjudication. None of the parameters governing Order I Rule 10 CPC has been appreciated by the trial Court. The sole reason assigned for dismissal of the application is that the petitioner seeks his impleadment in the final decree proceedings. In the considered opinion of this Court, such an order cannot be sustained. The availability of an opportunity to seek impleadment at subsequent stages of the proceedings cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground to refuse consideration of an application otherwise maintainable under Order I Rule 10 CPC. The jurisdiction vested in the Court cannot be declined merely by relegating the applicant to a later stage without first determining whether the applicant is entitled to be impleaded in the pending suit. 10. There is no dispute that the partition suit continues until the passing of the final decree, and in an appropriate case the interest of the transferee may also be protected in the final - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010188502026 NC: 2026:KHC:39855 WP No. 8752 of 2026 decree proceedings. However, such circumstances do not deter the trial Court from exercising the discretion vested in it under Order I Rule 10 of CPC. The trial Court has to decide the application on its own merits. A blanket rejection solely on the premise of the applicant’s impleadment in the final decree proceedings amounts to a failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by the Court. Hence, the impugned order needs to be set aside, and the issue is answered in favour of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. The order dated 12.01.2026 passed in I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.854/2013 by II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru is set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court. ii. The trial Court shall consider the application filed by the petitioner on its merits and pass appropriate orders within a period of four - 15 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010188502026 NC: 2026:KHC:39855 WP No. 8752 of 2026 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. iii. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. iv. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2