- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5149 WP No. 24489 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 24489 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. GOVINDARAJU SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS SMT ANUSUYA W/O LATE GOVINDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS, (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) 2. G UMESH S/O LATE GOVINDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 3. G KEMPURAJ S/O LATE GOVINDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 4. G VENKATESH S/O LATE GOVINDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NO.8/1, G M PALYA, BEML TOWNSHIP ROAD, BENGALURU-560075 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VEENA J KAMATH.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BYANNA S/O LATE EMARALLEPPA, AGE MAJOR, R/AT NO.24/1, 2ND CROSS, BYRASANDRA VILLAGE, C V RAMAN NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560093 Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5149 WP No. 24489 of 2025 2. SMT. RAMAMMA W/O LATE ASHWATHAIAH G M, AGE MAJOR, R/AT NO.10, 3RD CROSS, 3RD MAIN, G M PALYA, NEW THIPPASANDRA POST, BENGALURU-560075 3. SMT. RUKAMMA D/O LATE ASHWATHAIAH G M, W/O B GOPALA GOWDA, AGE MAJOR, R/AT JOGAHALLI, SADAHALLI POST, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110 4. SMT. INDRANI W/O M RAMU, D/O LATE ASHWATHAIAH G M, AGE MAJOR, R/AT CHIKKABEGUR, BEGUR POST, BENGALURU-560068 5. SMT. PADMAVATHAMMA W/O G A RAJANNA, D/O LATE G M ASHWATHAIAH, AGE MAJOR, R/AT NO.3/77, LINGARAJAPURA, THOMSON, BENGALURU-560084 6. M MANJUNATH S/O G M ASHWATHANARAYANA, AGE MAJOR, R/AT NO.10, GARUKAMATHAPALYA, HOSATHIPPASANDRA POST, BENGALURU-560075 7. THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU EAST TALUK, K R PURAM, BENGALURU-560036 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K , ADVOCATE FOR R7;) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5149 WP No. 24489 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTING BY QUASHING THE ORDER, DATED 02.07.2025, PASSED ON I.A.NO.1/2025, FILED U/OR. 1 RULE 10(2) OF C.P.C, IN O.S.NO.27106/2007, BY THE LEARNED XXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL ANDSESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-A 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 legal representatives of defendant No.3 in O.S.No.27106/2007 is directed against the impugned order dated 02.07.2025, whereby the application I.A.No.1/2025 filed by the petitioners under Order I Rule 10 to CPC seeking impleadment of additional defendants was dismissed by the trial Court by holding as under: “ORDERS ON IA No.1/2025 FILED DEFENDANT No.3(4) UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) OF CPC Instant application has been filed by applicant/defendant No.3(4) requesting the court to implead proposed parties whose name shown in schedule to the application as additional defendants in present suit. 2. The learned counsel for plaintiff orally objected by contending proposed parties are either necessary parties - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5149 WP No. 24489 of 2025 are proper parties to suit and presence of proposed parties not at all required for effective adjudication of dispute involved in suit. 3. Heard on both sides. Perused the records. 4. The following points arises for my consideration: 1. Whether applicant/defendant No.3(4) has made out sufficient grounds that presence of proposed parties is very much necessary for effective adjudication of dispute involved in suit? 2. What order? 5. My answer to the above points are as follows: Point No.1: In the negative; Point No.2: As per final order for the following: REASONS 6. POINT NO.1 :- The applicant filed affidavit stating that, plaintiff filed false and vexatious suit in respect of Sy.No.64 measuring 25 guntas situated at Byrasandra Village. For relief of declaration and injunction by alleging plaintiff is absolute owner of suit property. The Tahasildar, Bengaluru East made requisition to ADLR on 16.02.2021 to prepare survey sketch for survey No.64, measuring 25 guntas situated at Byrasandra Village. ADLR prepared survey sketch and handed over it to Tahasildar. In survey sketch report it is mentioned proposed parties are in Sy. No.64. Hence, presence of proposed parties is necessary for effective adjudication. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5149 WP No. 24489 of 2025 7. It is worth to note here that, plaintiff is master of his own case. If at all, plaintiff intentionally not included parties whose presence is necessary for effective adjudication, his suit will be failed. The applicant being defendant cannot direct plaintiff to implead such and such person as parties to suit. it is upto plaintiff who has to decide against whom he has to seek relief. It is specific allegation of plaintiff in plaint, defendants are unnecessarily interfering with plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of suit property and further he sought for recovery of portion of suit 'B' schedule property from defendants. Taking into consideration of pleadings and relief prayed by plaintiff in suit, presence of proposed parties is not necessary for effective adjudication. When, plaintiff is not ready to implead those proposed parties to suit, based on application filed by defendant No.3(4), plaintiff not forced or compelled to implead proposed parties as parties to suit. an application filed by applicant is not maintainable. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the negative. 8. POINT No.2: On above made discussion on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER I.A. No.1/2025 filed by applicant/defendant No.3(4) under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.” - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5149 WP No. 24489 of 2025 2. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and reconsideration of the entire material on record, 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. 3. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40