- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6340 WP No. 3202 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.3202 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI M.R. MANI, S/O M.S. RANSWAMI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.37, 2ND CROSS, 5TH MAIN ROAD, NEAR DAFFODIL ENGLISH SCHOOL, VENKATAPPA LAYOUT SANJAYNAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 094 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. OMKARA N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MISS. VARNITHA D/O LATE PRADEEP AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. UMA W/O LATE PRADEEP AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.42, 2ND CROSS, ADARSHNAGARA LR BANDE BANGALORE NORTH BENGALURU – 560 032. 2. SMT. LALITHA W/O SEENA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 3. S JAI PRAKASH S/O G SEENA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6340 WP No. 3202 of 2026 4. SMT. JYOTHI W/O JAI PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 5. VAISHNAVI D/O S JAI PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 6. RASHMI D/O S JAI PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS R2 TO R6 ARE RESIDING AT NO.11, 11TH CROSS, H.N.LAYOUT SWIMMING POOL EXTENSION MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU - 560003. …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.08.2025 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-63) ON I.A.NO.4 IN O.S.NO.6060/2020, VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION. 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 proposed defendant No.7 in O.S.No.6060/2020 is directed against the impugned order dated 28.08.2025 whereby the application-I.A.No.4 filed by the respondents-plaintiffs under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC to implead - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6340 WP No. 3202 of 2026 the petitioner as additional defendant No.7 in the suit was allowed by the Trial Court by holding as under: “Advocate for the defendant present. The plaintiff and her Counsel present. Case passover. Case again called out at 3.20 pm. Advocate for the defendant present and prays time for depositing amount. The plaintiff present. Heard on I.A. No. 4. Advocate for the plaintiff submits that, proposed defendant No. 7 by name M R Mani S/o M S Rangaswamy, aged about 57 years who has purchaser of the A suit schedule property, during the pendency of the suit, with permission of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore in MFA 551/2023 dt. 22.02.2023. Further argued that, proposed defendant No.7 or Counsel for the defendant No. 1 to 6 or defendants have not deposited 1/3 rd share pertaining to A suit schedule property, belongs to the share of minor plaintiff i.e. Varnitha. Hence he prays to allow the I.A. No. 4 to made proposed defendant No.7 for proper adjudication of the proceedings. On other hand Counsel for the proposed defendant No. 7 has filed detail objection by oppose the I.A. No. 4 stating that, this proposed defendant No. 7 has not violated - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6340 WP No. 3202 of 2026 any order passed in MFA 551/2023 before purchasing the A suit schedule property and also issued notice on 04.09.2024 to the plaintiffs but they did not appear when sale deed was registered pertaining the A suit schedule property and proposed defendant No. 7 has paid entire sale consideration to D1 to D5 and no due from him, therefore he prays to reject the I.A. No. 4 as it is not survived. Heard argument from both side. The Points that arise for my consideration are 1) Whether the plaintiff made out grounds to allow the I.A. No. 4. 2) What order ? My answer to the above points are as under: Point No.1: Affirmative. Point No.2: As per the final order on following. R E A S O N S Point No.1: The plaintiff has filled I.A. No. 4 U/o 1 Rule 10(2) to CPC for seeking to implead the party by name M R Mani S/o M S Rangaswamy, aged about 57 years, who has purchaser of the A suit schedule property, during the pendency of the suit, with permission of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore in MFA 551/2023 dt. 22.02.2023. In order to substantiate the argument, from the date of sale deed dt. 09.09.2024, this defendant or defendant No. 1 to 5 have not deposited the share of the minor plaintiff in 1/3rd of A Schedule property as per direction of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore in MFA 551/2023 dt. 22.02.2023. Therefore the plaintiffs have made - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6340 WP No. 3202 of 2026 out grounds to allow the I.A. No. 4. Hence my answer to the point no.1 is affirmative. Point No.2: On the above discussion and I proceed to pass the following: ORDER I.A. No. 4 U/o 1 Rule 10(2) to CPC filed by the plaintiffs is hereby allowed. Advocate for the plaintiff is hereby directed to carry out the amendment and to file amended plaint. For compliance order dt. 26.06.2025 and to hear on I.A. No. 5. Call on 02.09.2025.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that the same does not contain any illegality or infirmity nor can the same is said to have caused any prejudice or occasioned failure of justice particularly when the petitioner, who is now impleaded as additional defendant No.7 by virtue of the impugned order would be entitled to file his written - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6340 WP No. 3202 of 2026 statement, objections, documents, etc., and contest the suit and the claim of the plaintiff, in accordance with law. 4. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be said to have suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same is said to have caused any prejudice or resulted in miscarriage of justice warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath - (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohamed Ali Vs. V. Jaya & others – (2022) 10 SCC 477. 5. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. (ii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file his written statement, objections, documents, etc., and contest the suit and the claim of the plaintiff, in accordance with law. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6340 WP No. 3202 of 2026 (iii) The Trial Court is directed to consider the rival contentions of both sides and proceed further in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2