- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2183 WP No. 31994/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 31994/2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: VIJAY KUMAR J M S/O. MOHAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS JANIVARA VILLAGE AND POST KASABA HOBLI CHANNARARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 116. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIVEK REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI A P PULAKESHI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MOKSHITH GOWDA R A S/O ANIL AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS 2. BINDUSRI GOWDA D/O ANIL AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, BOTH ARE MINORS REP BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER, C.R. REKHA W/O ANIL RACHENAHALLI VILLAGE SHRAVANABELAGOLA HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATTNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 135 3. R. K. SHIVAPPA @ SHIVANNA S/O LATE KALLE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2183 WP No. 31994/2025 4. LAKSHMAMMA W/O R. K. SHIVAPPA @ SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 5. MADHU S/O R. K. SHIVAPPA @ SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 6. ANIL S/O R. K. SHIVAPPA @ SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 6 ARE R/AT RACHENAHALLI VILLAGE SHRAVANABELAGOLA HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATTNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 135 7. SHYLAJA W/O DEVARAJU D/O R. K. SHIVAPPA @ SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT SRIKANTANAGARA SHRAVANABELAGOLA HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATTNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 116 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.PRATHEEP.K.C., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 AND 2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.09.2025 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHANNARAYAPATNA IN O.S.NO.17/2022 ON IA AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2183 WP No. 31994/2025 ORAL ORDER This petition by the impleading applicant in O.S.No.17/2022 is directed against the impugned order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the Senior Civil Judge in JMFC, Channarayapatna, whereby the application filed by the petitioner impleading applicant seeking impleadment as additional defendant No.6 to the suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. 2. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record would indicate respondent Nos.1 and 2/ plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit, in O.S.No.17/2022 for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule, immovable properties and other reliefs. It is an undisputed fact as borne out from the material on record that the suit schedule properties comprises of 10 items of immovable properties, amongst which Item No.8 has been described as survey No.294/P3 measuring 00-35 guntas. The petitioner impleading applicant filed the instant application seeking impleadment on the ground that the plaintiffs as well as defendants had executed a registered sale agreement and a registered general - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2183 WP No. 31994/2025 power of attorney, both dated 15.03.2018 in favour of the impleading applicant only in respect of Item No.8 of the suit schedule properties. By the impugned order, the Trial Court rejected the application only on the ground that sale deed had not been executed and that a sale agreement and general power of attorney would not enable the petitioner to seek impleadment as additional defendant No.6. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, the petitioner/ impleading applicant is before this Court byway of the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 /plaintiffs submits that subsequent to the impugned order, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 themselves have filed a memo seeking deletion of Item No.8 claimed by the petitioner from the array of properties involved in the suit and as such, the present petition may be disposed of issuing appropriate directions to the Trial Court. 5. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition may be disposed of directing the Trial Court to delete item No.8 from the array of properties involved in the suit and proceed further to pass appropriate orders on the remaining properties involved in the suit. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2183 WP No. 31994/2025 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, having regard to the undisputed fact that Item No.8 of the suit schedule properties that is land bearing the survey No.294/P3 has been deleted from the array of properties, the claim of the petitioner in the said property would neither be adjudicated upon nor be affected by any judgment, decree or order to be passed in the suit and consequently I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition directing the Trial Court to delete Item No.8 from the array of suit schedule properties, if not already deleted as on today and proceed to pass appropriate orders/ judgments/ Decree in respect of all remaining suit schedule properties except Item No.8 and in accordance with law. 7. Subject to the aforesaid directions, petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11