- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010399152020 NC: 2026:KHC:51064 WP No. 15206 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 15206 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. K. GOVINDARAJU AGED 42 YEARS S/O SRI M KRISHNAPPA AGRICULTURIST R/AT 124, ANUR EXTENSION BYRANAYAKANAHALLI MAIN ROAD KASABA HOBLI, SIDDALAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DIST. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.V. DAYANANDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI KONDAPPA 81 YEARS S/O LATE MOOGAPPA 2. SMT NAGAMMA 66 YEARS S/O LATE KONDAPPA 3. SMT MUNUIYAMMA 51 YEARS D/O SRI KONDAPPA 4. SMT MUNIRATHNAMMA 48 YEARS D/O SRI KONDAPPA Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010399152020 NC: 2026:KHC:51064 WP No. 15206 of 2020 5. SMT RATHNAMMA 46 YEARS D/O SRI KONDAPPA 6. SMT JAYAMMA 44 YEARS D/O SRI KONDAPPA 7. SRI ERAPPA 41 YEARS S/O SRI KONDAPPA 8. SMT RATHNAMMA 36 YEARS W/O SRI ERAPPA 9. MASTER PAVAN KUMAR AGED 13 YEARS S/O SRI ERAPPA 10. MASTER KIRAN KUMAR AGED 11 YEARS S/O SRI ERAPPA R9 AND R10 REP. BY THEIR NATURAL GURADIAN FATHER SRI ERAPPA ALL ARE R/AT BYRANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI SIDDALAGHATTA TALUK-562 105. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R10) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.2.2020 PASSED IN IA NO.XIII FILED UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) R/W SECTION 151 CPC BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SIDLAGHATTA VIDE ANNEXURE-E. Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010399152020 NC: 2026:KHC:51064 WP No. 15206 of 2020 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.91/2014 pending on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Siddlaghatta, has called in question the order dated 10.02.2020, whereby the learned Trial Judge has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking impleadment of Smt.Gowramma, the alleged mortgagee, as a party to the suit. 2. Notice to respondent No.11 is dispensed with. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-defendants. 4. The petitioner has instituted the suit seeking specific performance of the contract on the basis of the Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010399152020 NC: 2026:KHC:51064 WP No. 15206 of 2020 Sale Agreement dated 28.02.2013. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants sought amendment of their written statement by bringing on record an assertion that they had created a mortgage over the suit property in favour of Smt. Gowramma. In view of the said subsequent transaction, the petitioner sought to implead the mortgagee as a defendant. The said application has been rejected by the learned Trial Judge. 5. The short question that arises for consideration is; Whether the alleged mortgagee is either a necessary or a proper party for adjudication of the suit for specific performance? 6. In a suit for specific performance, the principal controversy ordinarily centres around the enforceability of the contract between the contracting parties, including the due execution of the agreement, the plaintiff’s readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and his entitlement to the discretionary relief of specific Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010399152020 NC: 2026:KHC:51064 WP No. 15206 of 2020 performance. A person, who is not a party to the agreement cannot, merely by reason of a subsequent transaction, be treated as a necessary party for determining the rights and obligations arising under the agreement. 7. In the present case, the alleged mortgage has admittedly been created during the pendency of the suit. Such a transaction, if otherwise established, would remain subject to the doctrine of lis pendens and to the ultimate result of the suit. The subsequent mortgage, therefore, does not enlarge the scope of the controversy in the suit for specific performance nor does it render the mortgagee a necessary party for deciding the enforceability of the Sale Agreement dated 28.02.2013. 8. The burden continues to rest upon the petitioner- plaintiff to establish the due execution and enforceability of the Sale Agreement and to satisfy the requirement of readiness and willingness to perform his part of the Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010399152020 NC: 2026:KHC:51064 WP No. 15206 of 2020 contract. Even upon establishing these foundational requirements, the petitioner would have to demonstrate his entitlement to the discretionary relief of specific performance. The alleged mortgage transaction has no direct bearing upon these issues. 9. Merely because the defendants have entered into a subsequent transaction in respect of the suit property, the scope of adjudication in a suit for specific performance cannot be expanded so as to compel impleadment of every subsequent transferee or encumbrancer, particularly where the subsequent transaction is itself subject to the result of the pending litigation. The rights, if any, arising out of such subsequent transaction would necessarily abide by the decree that may ultimately be passed in the suit. 10. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Judge was justified in declining to implead Smt.Gowramma as a party Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010399152020 NC: 2026:KHC:51064 WP No. 15206 of 2020 to the suit. The impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity warranting interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 11. It is, however, made clear that any mortgage or other transaction entered into by the defendants in respect of the suit property during the pendency of O.S.No.91/2014 shall remain subject to the outcome of the said suit and shall be governed by the applicable principles of lis pendens. No opinion is expressed on the validity, enforceability or otherwise of the alleged mortgage transaction. The above point is answered in the Negative. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. All contentions of the parties are kept open. (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17 Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified