- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4594 WP No. 27709 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. 27709 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. MR N APPANNA S/O LATE A NARAYANA REDDY, AGED 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 16, 6TH CROSS, CHURCH STREET, HAL III STAGE, NEW THIPPASANDRA, BANGALORE 560075 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIDDHARTH SUMAN., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MRS SRIMATHI W/O LATE N.CHIKKAPPANA REDDY, AGED 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 70, 4TH CROSS, BEML MAIN ROAD, HAL III STAGE, NEW THIPPASANDRA, BANGALORE 560076 2. MR N SRINIVASA REDDY S/O LATE A NARAYANA REDDY, AGED 83 YEARS, RESIDING AT 1066, CHURCH STREE HAL III STAGE, NEW THIPPASANDRA, BANGALORE 560075 Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4594 WP No. 27709 of 2025 3. MR N KRISHNA REDDY S/O A NARAYANA REDDY, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS, SMT ANUSUYAMMA W/O LATE N KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, 4. MR K BHUVANESHWAR S/O LATE N KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 5. MRS K GEETHA W/O J GOVINDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 6. MRS K ROOPA W/O K VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.4 TO 6 ARE CHILDREN OF LATE N KRISHNA REDDY, ALL ARERESIDING AT NO 224, 6TH CROSS II MAIN, HAL III STAGE, NEW THIPPASANDRA, BANGALORE 560075 7. MR N GUNDAPPA S/O LATE A NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 1289, 1ST CROSS II MAIN, HAL III STAGE, NEW THIPPASANDRA, BANGALORE 560075 8. MR N THIMMA REDDY S/O LATE MR A NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 70/1, 4TH CROSS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4594 WP No. 27709 of 2025 BEML MAIN ROAD HAL III STAGE, NEW THIPPASANDRA, BANGALORE 560075 9. SMT LAKSHMAMMA W/O JAYARAMAREDDY, D/O LATE A NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT NO 220/3, PAPAIAH REDDY LANE, HAL, 3RD STAGE, NEW THIPPASANDRA, BANGALORE 560075 10. SMT KALYANAMMA @ RATHNAMMA W/O LATE PAPAIAH REDDY, D/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT NO 220/2 PAPAIAH REDDY LANE, NEW THIPPASANDRA, BANGALORE 560075 11. SRI VENUGOPAL REDDY H/O LATE SUNANDAMMA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO 103, MUNEKOLALU VILLAGE, S G R COLLEGE ROAD, NEXT TO OM CAR CARE, MARATHAHALLI POST, BANGALORE 560037 12. SMT TULSI V W/O VINOD, D/O LATE SUNANDAMMA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO C-202 NAGARJUNA SERENE APARTMENT, 9TH MAIN ROAD, CHOWDESHWAI LAYOUT, MARATHAHALLI OPPOSITE TO R J S COLLEGE, BANGALORE 560037 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4594 WP No. 27709 of 2025 13. SRI HARISH V S/O LATE SUNANDAMMA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 14. SRI SHASHI V S/O LATE SUNANDAMMA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.13 AND 14 ARE R/AT NO 103, MUNEKOLALU VILLAGE, S G R COLLEGE ROAD, NEXT TO OM CAR CARE, MARATHAHALLI POST, BANGALORE 560037 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SHIVANANDA METI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR SUCH OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS, QUASHING ORDER DATED 29.08.2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE XL ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY (CCH-41), IN O.S NO.25917/2007, I.E ANNX-A ON AN APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10 (2) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPCAND TO CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE IA NO. 3/2025 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 IN THE HONBLE TRIAL COURT IN O.S NO. 25917/2007. I.E ANNX-A1 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4594 WP No. 27709 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by defendant No.4 in O.S.No.25917/2007 is directed against the impugned order dated 29.08.2025 passed by the XL Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge , Bangalore, whereby the application-I.A.No.3/2025 filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff seeking impleadment of proposed defendant Nos.6 to 11 was allowed by the trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.1/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner/defendant No.4 and other defendants for partition and separate possession of her alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties and other reliefs. The said suit is being contested by the petitioner/defendant No.4 and other defendants. Both the parties having adduced oral and documentary evidence, the matter was posted for final arguments. At which stage, respondent No.1/plaintiff filed the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4594 WP No. 27709 of 2025 instant application seeking impleadment of proposed defendant Nos.6 to 11 on the ground that they were family members and as such in the suit for partition, they were both proper and necessary parties to the suit. The said application having been opposed by the petitioner/defendant No.4, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing I.A.No.3/2025 on the ground that the proposed defendants were both proper and necessary parties to the suit. While arriving at the said conclusion, the trial Court held as under: "ORDER ON I.A. No.3/25 This I.A. No.3/25 is filed by the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10(2) R/w. Sec.151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to implead the proposed defendants No.6 to 11 as parties to the suit. 2. It is stated in the affidavit annexed with the application that, at the stage of arguments, it was brought to the knowledge of the plaintiff that the legal representatives of Late. Parvathamma are not made as parties to the suit. It is stated that since her mother-in-law died during the pendency of the suit and she had clearly instructed to not to make her as a party to the suit, she has not made her as a party and it is not intentional but due to the bonafide reasons. It is stated that the mother-in-law of the plaintiff died on 20.01.2014 and the proposed defendants are the daughters and grandchildren of Late. Parvathamma. Hence, the proposed defendants are necessary parties to the suit and immediately after recasting of the issues the plaintiff has filed the present application and it is stated that the presence - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4594 WP No. 27709 of 2025 of the proposed legal heirs are necessary for just decision of the case and sought to allow the application. 3. Despite of service of notice, the proposed defendants remained absent. Hence, their objection is taken as not filed. Opposing the said application, the defendant No.4 has filed objection stating that the application is highly misconceived and is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the application filed at the very end of the proceedings, when the matter was posted for judgment is not sustainable. It is stated that the defendant No.4 had commenced final arguments on 29.03.2025. This Court has re casted the issues and additional issues and after framing of these issues, the plaintiff has come up with the present application. Hence, the present application is barred by time and it is nothing but abuse of process of law. The plaintiff is well aware that the present suit was filed by her in the year 2007 and subsequently, another suit O.S. No.2784/2013 was filed by Smt. Anasuyamma and 3 others against N.Srinivasa Reddy and 8 others and another suit in O.S. No.7095/2009 was filed by Smt. Lakshmamma against the Srinivasa Reddy and others and the plaintiff herein is a party to those suits. It is stated that in O.S. No.7095/2009, the plaintiff has filed applications to bring legal representatives of defendant No.7 on 31.05.2024 and the said facts were known to the plaintiff, but she has not come forward to file the present application before completion of her cross- examination. The plaintiff has filed the present application at the belated stage of arguments. It is stated that the plaintiff is contradicting her own claim made in para No.4 of the affidavit. The plaintiff is very well aware of the death of Smt. Sunandamma and Smt. Parvathamma and she has intentionally not brought the said facts to the knowledge of the Court. Hence, the application is frivolous and the plaintiff is guilty of “suppressio veri suggestio falsi”. This fact is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4594 WP No. 27709 of 2025 well within the knowledge of the plaintiff and the sole aim of the plaintiff in filing such false, frivolous and baseless application is to somehow protract the litigation by keeping such false and untenable suit alive for one reason or the other and thereby make false proclamations to the outside world about the pendency of the suit in relation to the said properties and thereby harass and vex this defendant. It is stated that the agricultural properties in question were purchased by her husband and the other brothers. In light of this categorical false admission, there arises no occasion to implead the sisters in the present suit. The proposed defendants are neither necessary nor proper parties to the present suit based on the pleadings of the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff is claiming that the properties pertain solely to the plaintiff’s late husband and the other brothers, no right, title or interest of the sisters is either pleaded or arises in this matter. Hence, the impleadment of proposed defendants namely the sisters and legal heirs of deceased sister is wholly unwarranted and contradictory to her claim. The plaintiff is well aware that she had no case and she has no semblance of right in the suit schedule property. Hence, under these circumstances, the application is devoid of any merit and is baseless and is liable to be rejected. 4. Heard both counsels and perused records. 5. Now the points that would arise for consideration of this Court is as hereunder ; 1. Whether the proposed defendants are necessary parties for the effective adjudication of the controversy involved ? 2. What order ? 6. My answer to the above points are as follows: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4594 WP No. 27709 of 2025 POINT NO.1 :: In the Affirmative POINT NO.2 ::As per final order for the following: REASONS 7. POINT NO.1 :: The present suit is filed by the plaintiff as against the defendants for the relief of partition and separate possession of her ½ share in the suit 'A' schedule property and for ¼ share in the suit 'B' schedule property and for declaration that the registered WILL dated 11.04.1996 is not binding on the plaintiff and is non-est and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession over the suit schedule 'C' property. It is evident from the records that, the evidence of both parties was concluded and the arguments of both counsels were heard and when the matter was posted for judgment, the defendant No.4 filed application to recall the order dated 24.02.2025 and permit the defendant No.4 to address the arguments. This Court has allowed the application and permitted the defendant No.4 to address arguments on merits of the case. At the stage of the arguments it was brought to the notice of the Court that some of the issues needed to be re casted and additional issues needs to be framed. Hence, this Court has framed additional issues on 02.04.2025 and has re casted the additional issues on 07.04.2025. Later, the matter was adjourned for further evidence of defendants on additional issues framed. At this point of time, the plaintiff has come up with the present application to implead the proposed defendants as parties to the suit on the ground that they are the daughters and grandchildren of her mother-in-law Late. Parvathamma. Admittedly, Smt. Parvathamma is not made as party to the suit and it is the contention of the plaintiff that her mother-inlaw was residing with the plaintiff and she had requested to not to make - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4594 WP No. 27709 of 2025 her as party to the suit until her death and as such, she was not made as party to the suit and after her demise, in view of the additional issues framed a to the non- joinder of necessary parties, the present application is filed. It is the bone of contention raised by the defendant No.4 that the application is highly belated and the plaintiff having knowledge of the death of Sunandamma and also that the legal representatives ought to have been made as parties to the suit, she has not chosen to bring them as parties to the suit and proposed defendants are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. 8. In support of his arguments learned counsel for defendant No.4 has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (1) [1992 SCR (2) 1] in case of Ramesh Hirachand Kundammal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors. wherein it is held that: The Court is empowered to join a person whose presence is necessary for the prescribed purpose and cannot under the Rule direct the addition of a person whose presence is not necessary for that purpose. If the intervener has a cause of action against the plaintiff relating to the subject-matter of the existing action, the Court has power to join the intervener so as to give effect to the primary object of the order, which is to avoid multiplicity of actions. (2) The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. V/s. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels (P) Ltd. reported in [(2010) 7 SCC 417] has held that: “ ….. necessary parties are those persons in whose absence no decree can be passed by the court or those persons against whom there is a right to some relief in respect of the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4594 WP No. 27709 of 2025 controversy involved in the proceedings; and that proper parties are those whose presence before the court would be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit although no relief in the suit was claimed against such person”. 9. Perused and considered the aforesaid judgments. It is well settled proposition of law that in order to implead a person as a party to the suit, the only point that needs to be considered is as to whether the proposed defendants are necessary parties to the suit and their presence is necessary for just decision of the case. The only reason which makes it necessary to make a person a party to an action is that he should be bound by the decree and therefore, there must be a question in action which cannot be effectually and completely settle unless he is a party to the suit. 10. No doubt, the plaintiff has filed the application at the belated stage. But it is equally important to take note of the fact that, issue as to the non-joinder of necessary parties has been framed by this Court, pursuant to which the plaintiff has come up with the present application to implead them as parties to the suit. So when the suit is one for partition and separate possession and other consequential reliefs and when there is an issue framed as to the non-joinder of the necessary parties, the legal heirs of Late. Parvathamma who is the mother-in-law of the plaintiff are necessary parties to the suit. So considering all these circumstances and nature of the controversy involved, this Court is of opinion that the presence of the proposed defendants is necessary for effective adjudication of the controversy involved. It is also important to take note of the fact that, the defendant No.4 himself has seriously contended that the suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties and now he - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4594 WP No. 27709 of 2025 has raised objection that the proposed defendants are not necessary or proper parties to the suit. The defendant No.4 at one breath says the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and when the plaintiff has filed this application, contrary to the earlier defense he has contends that they are not necessary parties to the suit, which is not sustainable. So the proposed defendants being the legal representatives of Late. Parvathamma who is the mother-in-law of the plaintiff, their presence is necessary for just decision of the case and in their absence no effective adjudication can be done. Hence the application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to answer aforesaid point for consideration in the Affirmative. 11. POINT NO.2 :: In view of finding given on Point No.1, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER I.A. No.3/25 filed by the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10(2) R/w. Sec.151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is allowed. The proposed defendants are brought on record. L/c. for plaintiff shall carry out amendment and furnish amended plaint." 4. Upon re-appreciation, re-valuation and re-consideration of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court came to the correct conclusion that the proposed defendants were both proper and - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4594 WP No. 27709 of 2025 necessary parties to the suit and as such they had to be impleaded as additional defendants in the suit. 5. It is also relevant to state that the petitioner being defendant No.4 and contesting the suit coupled with the fact that the plaintiff was a Dominus Litus in the suit, as held by various judgments including the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the cases of M/s. JN Real Estate vs. Shailendra Pradhan [2025 INSC 611] and Nak Engineering Company Private Limited vs. Tarun Keshrichand Shah and Others [2026 INSC 8], the impugned order permitting the plaintiff to implead additional defendants, who are said to be family members, cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the impugned order be said to cause any prejudice or hardship to the petitioner who would be entitled to put forth all contentions in the suit before the trial Court by putting forth necessary pleadings and contentions in this regard not only against the plaintiff, but also against the proposed defendants. 6. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order passed to the trial Court permitting the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4594 WP No. 27709 of 2025 plaintiff to implead additional proposed defendant Nos.6 to 11 cannot be said to have occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in the present petition as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam and Ors. vs. Chhabi Nath and Ors [(2015) 5 SCC 423], K.P.Natarajan and Ors. vs. Muthalammal and Ors [AIR 2021 SC 3443] and Mohd. Ali v. V.Jaya [(2022) 10 SCC 477]. 7. Accordingly, the petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. The trial court is directed to issue suit summons and notice to the impleaded defendant Nos.6 to 11 and proceed further and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11