- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1764 WP No. 2264 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 2264 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI CHETHAN KUMAR C., S/O CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT JUTTANAHALLI VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 110 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MUDDURAJ C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI MANJUNATHA SHASTRY S/O LATE SEETHARAM SHASTRY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO 1073, SRI MUKAMBIKA NILAYA, 6TH C MAIN, 6TH C CROSS, GANESHNAGAR LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 097 2. SRI JAGADEESH A. M. S/O A. M. MACHAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO 474, 9TH CROSS, M. S. RAMAIAH NORTH CITY, THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD, NAGAVARA, BANGALORE – 560 040 THE 2ND PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT IS REPRESENTED BY HIS G.P.A. HOLDER A. M. NACHAPPA, THE 3RD PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT HEREIN Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1764 WP No. 2264 of 2024 3. SRI A. M. NACHAPPA, S/O A. M. MACHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO SF01, PARIPURNA RESIDENCY, BEHIND EALLUMANDAMMA TEMPLE, NEAR SRINIDHI SCHOOL, HEBBAL KEMPAPURA, BANGALORE – 560 024 4. SRI AMRUTH H. K. S/O SRI H. N. KULKARNI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, MANAGING PARTNER, GREEN GARDEN FARMS, R/AT NO 24, KASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 561 203 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HAREESH KUMAR N. T., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; R4 SERVED, BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04/12/2023 ON IA NO. 5 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI IN O.S.NO. 253/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE- D BY DIRECTING TO IMPLEAD THIS PETITIONER PROPOSED DEFENDANT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the impleading applicant in I.A.No.5 in O.S.No.253/2021 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, is directed against the impugned order dated - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1764 WP No. 2264 of 2024 04.12.2023, whereby the said application filed by the petitioner- impleading applicant under Order I Rule 10(2) seeking impleadment as additional defendant to the suit was rejected by the trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and perused the material on record. Though respondent No.4 is served with notice, he has chosen to remain absent and unrepresented. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondent No.4 for declaration and permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable properties. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner-impleading applicant filed the instant I.A.No.5 seeking impleadment on the ground that the petitioner had purchased the suit schedule property from the defendant No.4 and his family members and that their right, title, interest and possession in the suit schedule property would be affected by any order, judgment or decree to be passed in the suit. The said application having been opposed by the plaintiffs, the trial - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1764 WP No. 2264 of 2024 Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. A perusal of the impugned order, in particular, para 10 will indicate that the trial Court has rejected I.A.No.5 on the ground that the petitioner has not produced any documents in support of his claim and that it is open for the petitioner to file a separate suit to ventilate his grievances. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the learned counsel for the petitioner specifically asserted that if the petitioner is permitted to come on record and put forth his contentions including documents, the petitioner would do so and the same may be considered by the trial Court in accordance with law. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner claims alleged right, title, interest and possession over the suit schedule properties through and under the defendant -respondent No.4, who has filed a memo conceding the claim of the plaintiff, it would be necessary to permit the petitioner to come on record as defendant No.2 to contest the claim of the plaintiffs on merits and in accordance with law. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1764 WP No. 2264 of 2024 5. Under these circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of the petition by issuing certain directions. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby allowed. ii) The impugned order insofar as it relates to rejecting I.A.No.5 under Order I Rule 10 is hereby set aside. iii) I.A.No.5 filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 is hereby allowed. Petitioner is permitted to be impleaded as additional Defendant No. 2 to the suit. iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file written statement and contest the suit on merits. v) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. vi) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 93