- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4642 WP No. 22399 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.22399 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. JALAJA, D/O BUDDI VEERA @ BUDDU VEERATHI, W/O DAYANANDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.1-198, KALTHODU VILLAGE, BYNDOOR TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 219. 2. SMT. PARVATHI, W/O LATE BASAVA VEERA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 3. SRI. KRISHNA, S/O SOORU VEERA, NOS.2 AND 3 ARE BOTH ARE R/AT D.NO.1-199, KALTHODU VILLAGE, BYNDOOR TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 219. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PREM PRASAD SHETTY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 2. MR. RAGHURAM DEVADIGA, S/O NARAYANA DEVADIGA, AGED 61 YEARS, SMT. SUCHITHRA DEVADIGA W/O RAGHURAM DEVADIGA AGED 50 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4642 WP No. 22399 of 2025 BOTH ARE R/AT ALOOR VILLAGE AND POST, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 201. 3. THE TAHSILDAR BYNDOOR TALUK, BYNDOOR POST AND VILLAGE, UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 214 4. THE TAHSILDAR KUNDAPURA TALUK, KUNDAPURA POST AND VILLAGE, UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 201. 5. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, KUNDAPURA KUNDAPURA SUB DIVISION, KUNDAPURA POST, UDUPI DISTRICT. 6. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UDUPI DISTRICT, RAJATHADRI, MANIPAL POST, MANIPAL – 576 104. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K CHANDRANATH ARIGA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SMT. V HEMALATHA, AGA FOR R3 TO R6) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING OR SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING I.A NO.9 & 10 DATED 09.06.2025 IN O.S NO.92/2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KUNDAPURA VIDE ANNEXURE-A; II) PASS SUCH OTHER DIRECTION/ORDERS/RELIEFS IN THE FORM OF WRIT AS MAY BE DEEMED FIT BY THIS HON’BLE COURT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4642 WP No. 22399 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the impleading applicants in IA Nos.9 and 10 filed in OS No.92/2024 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kundapura (for short “the Trial Court”) is directed against the impugned order dated 09.06.2025, whereby the said applications filed by the petitioner-impleading applicant under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment as additional defendants in the suit were rejected by the Trial Court by holding as under: “ORDER ON I.A. NO. IX and X The applicants named above have filed these applications under order I Rule 10 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to implead them as additional Respondents in the above case, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. In the affidavits annexed to the applications the Applicants stated that, they are residents of Kalthodu Village, Byndoor Taluk, Udupi District bearing Door Nos. 1/198 and 1/199 respectively. They have constructed their house on a grant land in Sy No. 346/P42 (Old Sy No.346) of Kalthodu Village, Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District, sanctioned to them - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4642 WP No. 22399 of 2025 by the Tahsildar, Kundapura Taluk, vide Order bearing Nos: HST/CR 198/96-97, HST/CR 199/96-97 respectively. The said property is a portion of the larger extent of lands in 'B' SCHEDULE and which is adjoining the 'A' SCHEDULE of the above suit property. Hence it is stated that, they are necessary party for the proper adjudication of the present suit. 3. It is stated that, since their property does not have a road access, they have been fighting with the Defendants 1 to 4 and concerned Government department for creation of pakka road on 'B' Schedule Property, which is belongs to the Government and that the Plaintiffs have no tittle to the suit 'B' Schedule Property. It is stated that they came to know that the Plaintiffs have filed this suit by suppressing the true facts and have obtained an order of status quo behind their back and are further desperately trying to obtain an order of injunction against the Defendants which in turn would restrain them from forming the road to their property. This would also restrain them and their family members from the right of way to their property and thus attempt to dispossess them completely from their property by encroaching the government lands. 4. It is stated that, the said suit seems to be a collusive suit between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants as the non-filing of the Written Statement by the Defendants who are represented by the learned APP in the matter - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4642 WP No. 22399 of 2025 clearly establishes the nexus between both of them and if this Hon'ble Court passes any such order/s allowing the application or prayer of the Plaintiffs in this suit, it would put me in great hardship and irreparable loss. 5. It is stated that, they have substantial interest in this suit and if the present applications to implead them as a Defendants is not allowed they will be put to great suffering. On the other hand, no hardship will be caused to the Plaintiffs in case the prayer made in the present application is allowed by this Hon'ble Court. Hence prays to allow the application. 6. On the other hand the Plaintiffs denied that the applicants are the residents of Kalthodu Village, Byndoor Taluk and have constructed house on alleged granted land in Sy. Nos. 346/P41 & 346/P42 of Kalthodu Village. According to Plaintiffs, the affidavit is bald. The applicants have not stated reasons to implead them as party to the suit. The averments made in the affidavit annexed to the applications is false, frivolous and vexations. The subject matter of the suit is no way related to the applicants. Hence prays to dismiss the applications with heavy cost. 7. Heard the learned counsels for the parties. Perused records and list of authority filed by the advocate for the applicants. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4642 WP No. 22399 of 2025 8. Now the points would arise for consideration of this Court are as follows; ::POINTS:: 1. Whether the applicants are necessary parties to the suit to adjudicate the question involved in the suit effectively and completely? 2. What order? 9. This Court answers to the above points is as follows: Point No.1 : In the Negative Point No.2 : As per the final order for the following:- :: REASONS:: POINT NO.1: 10. Perused the materials available on records. On perusal it appears that, The Plaintiffs have filed this suit against the Defendants 1 to 4/Government officials for the relief of permanent injunction and other allied reliefs in respect of Suit 'A' and Suit 'B' Schedule Property. 11. Admittedly when the matter scheduled for Plaintiff's evidence, the present applications are filed by the respective Applicants to implead them as additional Respondents in the above case as they are necessary parties to the suit and they have substantial right over the 'B' Schedule government property. 12. At this juncture it is relevant to extract hereunder, "who is necessary party" and "who is proper party to the suit." - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4642 WP No. 22399 of 2025 A necessary party: is one whose presence indispensable to the constitution of the suit against whom the relief is sought and without whom no effective orders can be passed. A proper party: is one, in whose absence an effective. order can be passed but whose presence is necessary for a complete and end decision on the question involved in the proceeding. In other words in absence of a necessary party no degree can be passed so far as it relates to the parties before the court. His presence, however enables the court to adjudicate more effectively and completely. 13. In order to determine the question whether a particular party is a necessary party to the proceeding the following requirements is necessary which are:- 1) There must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of a matter involved in the proceeding in question. 2) It should not be possible to pass an effective decree in absence of such part. With the above points this Court proceed with the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. The learned counsel for the applicants relied on 1) Hakku Patras dated: 22/07/1988, 2) photocopies of memorandum of title deed, 3) RTC for the year 2021- 2022 in respect of land bearing Sy. Nos.346/P42 & 346/P41, 4) report of Village accountant and 5) RTC for the 96-97 in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 346, argued before the court that, applicants have granted - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4642 WP No. 22399 of 2025 land in Sy. Nos. 346/P42 & Sy. No. 346/P41 (old Sy. No. 346) of Kalthodu Village, Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District which is a portion of 'B' Schedule Property. Since the applicants do not have road to access their property fighting with the Defendants herein and concerned authority for creation of Pakka road in 'B' schedule property. The Plaintiffs have filed this suit by suppressing the material facts and restrained them from forming the road to their properties. Hence prays to allow the applications. In support of his arguments, learned Counsel relied on decision between Md. Sabir Ansari V/s Sada Nanda Mandal in W.P.(c) No. 587/2009 of Hon'ble High court of Jharkhand. 15. On the other hand the Plaintiffs contended that, the applicants are no way related to the subject matter of suit. Neither they are necessary parties nor proper parties to the suit. Hence prays to dismiss the applications. 16. No doubt as per the Plaint averments and documents available on record it depicts that, 'B' Schedule property bearing Sy. No.346/P1 totally measuring 1366.39.00.00 Acres of land situated at Kalthodu Village, Byndoor Taluk, Udupi District is Government land. Though the said fact is admitted by the Plaintiffs, in one breath, the Plaintiffs claimed that 'B' Schedule property measuring 20 Acres of land is form kumki to Suit 'A' Schedule property and in an another breath the Plaintiffs claimed that they have got possessory - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4642 WP No. 22399 of 2025 right and their possession is adverse to the interest of Defendants as they have been in possession of suit 'B' Schedule property for 80 years. Hence filed this suit for injunction stating that, the Defendants have interfered their right over the suit 'A' and 'B' Schedule Property. 17. Be that as it may, RTC produced by the applicants for the year 1996-97 in respect of original land bearing Sy. No. 346 of Kalthodu Village depicts that, land bearing Sy. No. 346 measured 4437.95 Acres standing in the name of Government. However, Portion of lands in Sy. No. 346/P41 & Sy. No.346/P42 seems to be granted in the name of applicants as per Hakku patras. Definitely it is not case of the applicants that, they have got right of pathway or right of road over suit 'B' Schedule Property. On the other hand, it is their specific case that, they are fighting with the Defendants herein for creation of road over suit 'B' Schedule Property for better enjoyment of their granted properties. When such being the Case if the applicants have no approach/access to their land, then they would have approach the competent forum for their remedy. Absolutely, the applicants have no manner of right, title and interest over 'B' Schedule property as on the date of applications. However it appears that, for the purpose of creation of road/right of road over 'B' Schedule Property for better enjoyment of their property have filed this applications. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4642 WP No. 22399 of 2025 18. In the present case on hand there is no cause of action between the present applicants and the Plaintiffs to implead them as parties to the suit. The Plaintiffs are dominus litis. They are the best persons to judge their interest. It is therefore, for them to chose their opponent from whom they claims relief and this Court should not compare them to fight against a person who they do not want to file and from whom they claims relief. On perusal of the materials it appears that, applicants filed this application only with an intention to deprive the Plaintiffs to obtain any favorable order in their favour in respect of Government land. Hence the facts and circumstance of the case on hand and the decisions relied on by the applicants are too different as the present suit is for bare injunction. The law laid down in the supra authority is not applicable to the case on hand. As such, POINT NO.1 answered in the NEGATIVE. POINT NO.2: 19. In view of the reasons assigned above, this court proceed to pass the following, ORDER Applications filed by the applicants U/O 1 Rule 10 R/W Sec.151 of C.P.C., as I.A., Nos. IX & X to implead them as additional respondents in the above case are hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.500/- each.” - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4642 WP No. 22399 of 2025 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned AGA for respondent Nos.3 to 6 and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that that the trial Court has come to the correct conclusion that having regard to the well settled position of law that the plaintiffs being the dominus litus cannot be compelled to implead the petitioners as additional parties to the suit as held by the Apex Court in the cases of M/s. J.N. Real Estates Vs. Shailendra Pradhan – 2025 INSC 611 and NAK Engineering Co. Ltd Vs. Tasun Keshrichand & ors – 2026 INSC 8 and consequently, the petitioners were neither proper nor necessary parties for adjudication of the issues in controversy involved in the suit, which was one for bare/permanent injunction simpliciter in which there was neither any averment nor any allegation or any relief sought for against the petitioners-impleading applicants and the suit was only instituted as against the State and its authorities. It is needless to state that any observation, finding, judgment, decree, order etc. passed/to be passed in O.S.No.92/2024 in favour of the plaintiffs would not be binding upon the petitioners- - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4642 WP No. 22399 of 2025 impleading applicants nor would it affect their claim, right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule property. Further, the petitioners-impleading applicants would be entitled to take recourse to such remedies as available in law to ventilate their grievances. 4. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to be capricious or perverse or having occasioned failure 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 Mohammed Ali Vs. Jaya – (2022) 10 SCC 477. Accordingly, the present petition deserves to be disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. 5. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4642 WP No. 22399 of 2025 (ii) It is made clear that neither the impugned order nor any other finding, observation, judgment, decree, order etc. passed/to be passed in O.S.No.92/2024 would be binding upon the petitioners nor affect their claim, right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule properties and contentions in any other suit or litigation between the parties. (iii) Liberty is also reserved in favour of the petitioners to take recourse to such other remedies as available in law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46