- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5147 WP No. 27507 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. 27507 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI A S KANTHARAJU S/O. SIDDASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, NO. 179, FIRST CROSS, BCC 2ND STAGE, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560040 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.P HONAKHANDE.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT CHELUVAMMA W/O LATE V.M.SUBBANNA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS. 2. SRI. MADHUKAR.S. S/O LATE V.M.SUBBANNA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. 3. SRI. MANJUNATH.S. S/O LATE V.M.SUBBANNA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT NO.2564, 2ND CROSS, KALIDASA ROAD, V.V.MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570002. 4. SRI. KALANAYAKA, S/O PURNAYA JAVARANAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT BENKIPURA VILLAGE, Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5147 WP No. 27507 of 2025 BELLIKERE HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK. MYSURU-571103 5. SRI. RAJA ARADYA, S/O PUTTASWAMY ARADYA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT ANNARAYAPURA VILLAGE, BELLIKERE HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSURU -571103 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRADEEP NAIK K.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORD IN O.S.NO. 229/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HUNSUR FOR REFERENCE IN THIS 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 impleading applicant in O.S.No.229/ 2020 is directed against the impugned order dated 16.06.2025, whereby the application filed by the petitioner – defendant No.3 seeking impleadment under Order I Rule 10 to CPC was dismissed by the trial Court by holding as under: “ORDER ON IA NO.III The impleading applicant – Sri. A.S.Kantharaju has filed I.A.III under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC seeking for impleading him as the defendant No.3 in this suit. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5147 WP No. 27507 of 2025 2. The grounds urged in support of IA.No.III, in brief, are as follows: In the affidavit annexed to the application, it is averred that the plaintiffs have instituted the present suit seeking the relief of injunction against the defendants. The plaintiffs have claimed such relief solely against the existing defendants, contending that plaintiffs are the absolute owners in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. It is further averred that the suit properties are, in fact, the self-acquired properties of the applicant, who is in possession and enjoyment thereof. It is alleged that the plaintiffs have deliberately omitted the applicant from the array of parties and, instead, have made the applicant’s labourer as defendant No.2. The applicant contends that the plaintiffs are guilty of suppression of material facts. On these grounds, the applicant has sought to allow I.A. No. III, asserting that his presence is just and necessary for a proper and complete adjudication of the real matters in controversy in the suit. 3. The plaintiffs have not filed objections to I.A.No.III even after grant of sufficient time and opportunity. 4. Heard and perused the materials available on record. 5. Now the points that arise for consideration are as follows; 1. Whether the proposed defendant is a necessary or proper party to the suit? - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5147 WP No. 27507 of 2025 2. What order? 6. My answer to the above points are as hereunder: Point No.1 : In the Negative Point No.2 : As per the final order for the following: REASONS 7. Point No.1: Under Rule 10(2) of Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court is empowered to add any person as a party to the proceedings if the Court deems that such presence is necessary in order to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. From a plain reading of the said provision, it is evident that the Court has the discretion to add either a necessary or a proper party. It is a well- settled principle of law that a necessary party is one in whose absence no effective decree can be passed by the Court. A proper party, on the other hand, is one whose presence is essential to ensure that all matters in controversy are effectually and completely resolved. The fundamental test to determine whether a person is a necessary or proper party is whether such person would be bound by the result of the suit and whether the issues in controversy can be completely and effectively adjudicated upon in their absence. If the controversy cannot be fully settled without the presence of such a person, then their impleadment becomes necessary. Furthermore, it is settled that the discretion under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC is to be exercised judiciously by the Court, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5147 WP No. 27507 of 2025 based on the necessity of the party’s presence for complete adjudication. An application for impleadment or deletion of parties cannot be allowed solely on the ground that it is unopposed or not objected to by the existing parties. The merit of the application must be evaluated independently by the Court in accordance with the settled principles of law. 8. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiffs seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants,restraining them from interfering with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs have asserted that they are the absolute owners of the suit properties and are in peaceful possession and cultivation thereof. It is further alleged that the defendants have been interfering with their possession, thereby necessitating the filing of the present suit for protection of their possession. 9. The impleading applicant seeks to be added as a party to the present suit as a proposed defendant, on the ground that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties as an absolute owner. It is observed that the suit, as presently framed, pertains to the alleged exclusive possession of the plaintiffs and the purported interference by the existing defendants. The suit for injunction is founded on a specific cause of action, which is personal and particular to the plaintiffs as against the named defendants. It is a settled position of law that in a suit for injunction, the cause of action must relate directly to those parties who are alleged to be causing interference. The - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5147 WP No. 27507 of 2025 cause of action, being personal in nature, cannot be extended to persons against whom no allegations are made in the plaint. In the present case, no averments or allegations have been made against the proposed applicant in the plaint. Accordingly, there is no cause of action disclosed against the applicant to hold that he is either a necessary or proper party to the present proceedings. 10. Therefore, the questions relating to the ownership of the suit schedule properties, as claimed by the impleading applicant,fall outside the scope of the present suit. The suit, as framed, is a simple action for permanent injunction based on alleged interference with possession. Allowing the impleadment of the applicant would alter the nature and character of the suit and introduce issues that are foreign to the limited scope of adjudication in an injunction suit. Such impleadment would not only broaden the controversy but would also require adjudication of ownership rights, which is impermissible in a suit for injunction. 11. This view finds support in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J.J. Lal Pvt Ltd., v. M.R. Murali reported in AIR 2002 SC 1061, wherein in a suit between landlord and tenant, the Municipal Corporation had sought to be impleaded as a party claiming to be the owner of two premises involved in that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in a simple landlord-tenant suit, the relationship of Municipal Corporation with the respondent and their mutual right and obligations are not germane. It - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5147 WP No. 27507 of 2025 has been held that the question of title cannot be decided in such suit. Further it has been held that impleadment of the Corporation in that case would fundamentally change the complexion of the litigation and introduce controversies beyond the limited scope of that proceeding. 12. Though the facts in the present case are not the same as in the decision referred herein above, the underlying principle squarely applies to the present case, reinforcing the principle that title disputes cannot be permitted to dilute or complicate the adjudication of a straightforward injunction suit. The issues sought to be raised by the impleading applicant pertain to determination of ownership and title questions which are ordinarily adjudicated in a suit for declaration. These are entirely distinct from the issues arising in the present suit, which is limited to questions of possession and the alleged interference therewith. Further it is to be noted that, in a suit for injunction, the plaintiff, being the dominus litis, cannot be compelled to implead third parties against whom no relief is sought. If the impleading applicant claims any independent right or title over the suit schedule properties, it is always open to him to avail appropriate remedies in accordance with law. 13. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion impleadment sought in the present application is neither warranted nor necessary for the adjudication of the present suit. On the contrary, such impleadment would unnecessarily complicate the proceedings and introduce - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5147 WP No. 27507 of 2025 controversies that fall outside the scope of this suit. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that I.A.No.III is devoid of merits. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the Negative. 14. Point No.2:- In view of the discussion, reasons and answer to Point No.1, it is just and proper to pass the following:- ORDER The I.A.No.III filed by the impleading applicant under Order I Rule10(2) of CPC is hereby dismissed.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. Upon reconsideration, revaluation, appreciation of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court rejecting I.A.No.3 is in complete and total consonance/conformity with well settled principles of law governing addition/deletion of parties and having regard to the undisputed fact that the respondents-plaintiffs are the dominus litis and in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. J.N. Real Estates Vs. Shailendra Pradhan – 2025 INSC 611 and NAK Engineering Co. Ltd Vs. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5147 WP No. 27507 of 2025 Tasun Keshrichand & ors – 2026 INSC 8, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court was fully justified in rejecting or dismissing the application for impleadment filed by the petitioner. 4. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner having already instituted one more suit in O.S.No.92/2022, cannot seek impleadment in the present suit, which is one for bare/permanent injunction simpliciter and as such, the impugned order does not warrant interference on this ground also. 5. Under these circumstances, the impugned order 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. 6. In the result, I pass the following: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5147 WP No. 27507 of 2025 ORDER (i) The petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. (ii) It is however made clear that any judgment, decree, order, compromise, settlement etc., passed/to be passed in O.S.No.229/2020 shall not be binding upon the petitioner nor will it affect his alleged right title interest or possession over the suit schedule property in any manner whatsoever. (iii) It is further directed that all rival contentions between the parties including the rival contentions in O.S.No.92/2022 filed by the petitioner against the respondents are kept open to be decided in the said suit and no opinion is expressed on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44