- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4338 WP No. 24756 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 24756 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. GANGAPPA S/O LATE PAPANNA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR’s, SRI PAPANNA, S/O LATE GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 2. SRI GANGADHARAPPA S/O LATE GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT HULIKUNTE VILLAGE, D. PALYA HOBLI, GAURIBIDNURU TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT – 561 208 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANNAKKI UDAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O LATE NALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, R/AT KADIRENAHALLI VILLAGE NAGARAGERE HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANURU TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRI – 561 208 2. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O LATE ESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT KATTAMINDAHALLI VILLAGE Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4338 WP No. 24756 of 2025 NAGARAGERE HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANURU TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT – 561 208 3. SRI NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE PAPANNA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR’s SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, 4. SRI THIMMARAJU S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT HULIKUNTE VILLAGE, D. PALYA HOBLI, GAURIBIDNURU TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT – 561 208 5. SRI NYATHAPPA S/O LATE PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT HULIKUNTE VILLAGE, D. PALYA HOBLI, GAURIBIDNURU TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT – 561 208 6. SRI THIMMAIAH S/O LATE PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT HULIKUNTE VILLAGE, D. PALYA HOBLI, GAURIBIDNURU TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT – 561 208 7. SMT. GANGARATHNAMMA @ RATHNAMMA D/O LATE PAPANNA W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT KADIRADEVARAHALLI, THONDEBHAVI HOBLI, GOWRIBIDNURU TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR – 561 208 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4338 WP No. 24756 of 2025 8. SRI.RATHNAMMA W/O LATE GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT HULIKUNTE VILLAGE, D. PALYA HOBLI, GAURIBIDNURU TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT – 561 208 9. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA, D/O. LATE PAPANNA, W/O ASHWATHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT MYDIGOLA VILLAGE, KENCHANDRA MANDAL, HINDUPUR TALUK, ANANTHPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH – 515 201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A. SAMPATH, ADVOCATE FOR R5; V/O DATED 17.09.2025 NOTICE TO R1 TO R4 & R6 TO R9 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE JNR DVN AND JMFC AT GAURIBIDANURU DATED 15.10.2024 ON IA FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN OS NO. 79/2013 AS PR ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by plaintiff Nos.1(a) and 1(b) in O.S.No.79/2013 is directed against the impugned order dated 15.10.2024 whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10(2) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4338 WP No. 24756 of 2025 CPC to bring on record the proposed defendants 9 and 10 to the suit was dismissed by the trial Court. 2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the aforesaid suit filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs against the respondents-defendants for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule property, the petitioners filed the instant application seeking impleadment of defendant No.9, who is alleged to have been a purchaser in respect of the suit schedule property. In addition there to, the petitioner also sought for impleadment of the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar as an additional defendant No.10. By the impugned order, though the proposed defendants 9 and 10 did not appear before the court nor contested the application, the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned order dismissing the applications, aggrieved by which, petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for 5th respondent and perused the material on record. 4. A perusal of the impugned order will clearly indicate that the same is contrary to the provisions contained not only in Order 1 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4338 WP No. 24756 of 2025 Rule 10(2) CPC pertaining to proper and necessary parties, but the impugned order is also contrary to the principles underlying Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, pertaining to devolution of interest during the pendency of the proceedings upon the proposed defendant Nos. 9 10, who were to be added as an additional defendants in the suit. At any rate, since suit summons would have to be issued to the proposed defendants 9 and 10 and an opportunity would be provided to them to appear before the trial Court and contest the suit, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and allow the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC. 5. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 15.10.2024 passed by the trial court in O.S.No.79/2013 is hereby set aside. (iii) The application filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC is hereby allowed. (iv) The petitioners are permitted to carryout necessary amendment to the plaint and file amended cause title before the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4338 WP No. 24756 of 2025 trial court, who shall issue suit summons and notice to the additional impleaded defendants 9 and 10 and provide an opportunity to them and proceed further in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SRL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68