- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5979 WP No. 11668 of 2025 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. 11668 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. PREMA ANANTHARAM, W/O. LATE ANANTHARAM, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT. NO.95, 3RD MAIN ROAD, OPPOSITE STELLA MARIS CONVENT, VYALIKAVAL, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU 560 003. REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER ARATHI ANATHARAM, W/O. RAGHUVEER K. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAKASH TIMMANNA HEBBAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. RAMANJALU RAJU, S/O. LATE SUBBA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT. NO.27/1, 47TH CROSS, 8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 560 082. 2. MRS. ANDAL, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5979 WP No. 11668 of 2025 W/O. MR, C. N. VARADARAJAN AGED ABOUT 84 YRS PALANAHALLI, JALA HOBLI YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560064 3. TAHASILDAR, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, NES OFFICE ROAD, SUGGAPA LAYOUT, EAST COLONY, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T N VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1, SMT. SURABHI SRINIVAS, ADV. FOR SHRI BOLA VEDVYAS SHENOY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2, SMT. V. HEMALATHA, AGA FOR R-3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.07.2023 PASSED BY THE HONORABLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DEVANAHALLI ON I.A NO. II IN O.S NO.824/2022, AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS I.A NO. II FILED BY DEFENDANT NO.2 UNDER ORDER I RULE 10 (2) OF THE CPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5979 WP No. 11668 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the plaintiff in O.S.No.824/2022, is directed against the impugned order dated 05.07.2023 passed on I.A No. 2, whereby the said application filed by respondent No. 2 / defendant No. 2 under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC seeking her deletion from the suit, was allowed by the Trial Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner / plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents / defendants for declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The said suit having been contested by the respondents / defendants, the respondent No. 2 / defendant No. 2 filed the instant application seeking her deletion on the ground that she was neither a proper nor necessary party to the suit. The said application filed by respondent No. 2 having been opposed by the petitioner, the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5979 WP No. 11668 of 2025 Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the application, aggrieved by which the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the Respondent No. 2 was not a proper or necessary party to the suit by placing reliance upon the contentions urged by the respondent No.2 on merits, which is impermissible in law while considering an application for addition / deletion of parties and the said finding recorded by the Trial Court being contrary to law and facts, deserves to be set aside. So also, the Trial Court fell in error in coming to the conclusion that there are no averments made by the petitioner / plaintiff against the respondent No. 2 / defendant no. 2, without appreciating that in several parts of the plaint, especially at paragraphs 9, 10, 11 etc., the petitioner has made clear averments against the respondent No. 2 / defendant No. 2, which is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the respondent No. 2 / defendant No.2 was both a proper and necessary party to the suit. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5979 WP No. 11668 of 2025 5. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, deleting defendant No.2 without conducting a full-fledged trial in view of disputed questions of law and facts, has occasioned failure of justice, warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. Insofar as the contention urged by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 / defendant no. 2, that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as against the respondent No.2 / defendant No.2 is concerned, the said contention would have to be necessarily adjudicated upon only after a full-fledged trial and not at the stage of considering an application for deletion / addition of parties and as such, even this contention urged by the respondent No. 2 cannot be accepted. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 05.07.2023 passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.824/2022 allowing I.A.No.2, is hereby set aside. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5979 WP No. 11668 of 2025 iii) The application I.A No. 2 filed by the respondent No. 2 / defendant No. 2 is hereby dismissed. However liberty is reserved in favour of respondent No.2 / defendant No.2 to urge all the contentions put forth in I.A No.2 during the course of the proceedings and the same shall be decided by the Trial Court, in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE KS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4