- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7515 WP No. 25551 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 25551 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. H.S. ASHOK KUMAR S/O. SMT. DODDATHYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT: NO. 56/47 OLD GURAPPANA PALYA MAIN ROAD, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, B. R. COLLEGE POST, BENGALURU - 560 029. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATEESH B.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. MOHAMMED SADIQ AHMED, S/O MR. NOOR AHMED, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, 2. MRS. RABIYA, W/O. MOHAMMED SADIQ AHMED, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 3. MR. MOHAMMED SAJID, S/O. MR. NOOR AHMED, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, 4. MRS. UZMA KOUSAR, W/O. MOHAMMED SAJID, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT: NO.5, 27, 8TH CROSS, NEW GURAPPANAPALYA, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, DHARMARAM COLLEGE POST, BENGALURU - 560 029. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7515 WP No. 25551 of 2025 5. MR. ASIF KHAN S/O LATE HABEEB KHAN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 6. MR. NAWAAZ KHAN, S/O LATE HABEEB KHAN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT: NO.28, 9TH MAIN ROAD, GURAPPANAPALYA, BTM I STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 029. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORD IN O.S. NO. 4288/2021 ON 10/07/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL., CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU AND PERUSE THE SAME.(B) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT AND QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE III ADDL., CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN O.S. NO. 4288/2021 ON 10/07/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE – C 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 ORAL ORDER This petition by the impleading applicant in O.S. No.4288/2021 on the file of the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is directed against the impugned order passed on I.A. No.2, whereby the said application filed by the petitioner/impleading applicant seeking impleadment as additional defendant No.3 in the suit was rejected by the Trial Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7515 WP No. 25551 of 2025 2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent Nos.1 to 4/plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against respondent Nos.5 and 6/defendant Nos.1 and 2 for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The said suit is being contested by the defendants. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner/impleading applicant filed the instant application inter alia claiming independent right, title, interest and possession over the suit schedule property and as such, sought for impleadment as additional defendant No.3. By the impugned order, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not a proper or necessary party to the suit and his remedy is to ventilate his grievance by taking recourse to such remedies as available in law, including filing a separate suit against the parties to the present suit. While arriving at the said conclusion, the Trial Court held as under: “ ORDERS ON I.A.No.2 UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC. This application is filed by the impleading applicants under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w Sec.151 of CPC to permit them to come on record as additional defendant. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7515 WP No. 25551 of 2025 Proposed Impleading Applicant:- Sri.H.S.Ashok Kumar S/o Late Smt.Doddathyamma, Aged about 63 years, S/o Clement Mathias, R/at 56/47, Old Gurappana Palya Main Road, Bannerghatta Road, D.R.College Post, Bengaluru – 560 029. 2. In support of the application, the proposed defendant has sworn to an accompanying affidavit stating that the proposed defendant came to know that the plaintiff has filed the suit against his brother stating that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and suppressing several material facts and file the present suit illegally in fact, the proposed defendant father is the absolute owner in possession of the schedule property in his life time. After the death of proposed defendant’s father, he and his brother and sisters have succeeded the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property is granted by BBMP in favour of proposed defendant’s father. After the death of his father, defendants have filed a suit in O.S.No.25187/2013 (CCH-73) before Mayohall Court and the suit has got dismissed. BBMP is also initiate the proceedings against his father before the BBMP. Thereafter, his father has filed a miscellaneous appeal before this Court against the eviction order against his father in M.A.No.15/2007. After hearing the matter this Court was pleased to allow the appeal and setaside the eviction order passed by the BBMP. BBMP is also preferred a Writ Petition in W.P.No.11882-883/17 before the Hon’ble High Court of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7515 WP No. 25551 of 2025 Karnataka, Bengaluru and the same is pending for consideration. The plaintiffs intentionally and deliberately suppressing the facts with malafide intention to grab the valuable property belongs to proposed defendant. If the application is not allowed, the proposed defendant will be put to irreparable loss and injury. Hence, prays to allow the application. 3. On the other hand, the plaintiff filed his objections stating that the application filed by the proposed defendant is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. The impleading applicant is stranger and allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of application is hereby specifically denied. The plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants No.1 and 2 on the basis of cause of action shown in the plaint and as such, the presence of the proposed defendant No.3 is not necessary for deciding the issue in controversy between the parties to the suit. The issue involved in this suit can be effectively and conclusively decided, even in the absence of the impleading applicant. The applicant has made vague averments without any substantiation as regards the alleged ownership over the suit schedule property. At this juncture that the above matter is now set down for further cross examination of D.W.1 and D.W.1 without tendering for further cross-examination has instigated this applicant to file the present application only to protract the proceedings. Therefore, prays to reject the application. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7515 WP No. 25551 of 2025 4. From the contents of the I.A. and available documents on records, the points that arise for my consideration are:- POINTS 1. Whether the impleading applicant has made out a ground to allow this application? 2. What order ? 5. Heard arguments. After hearing the arguments and considering the available material on record my answer to the above points are,- POINT NO.1 : In the Negative, POINT NO.2 : As per final order, for the following:- R E A S O N S 6. POINT No.1:- This suit has filed by the plaintiffs seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants herein. The plaintiffs are the dominus litis of thelitigation. In the case on hand, he has not sought any relief against the impleading applicant. If the impleading applicant really has any grievance or his any right is infringed it is always opened him to file a separate suit. As such, he is not a necessary party or proper party to the suit and no relief sought against the impleading applicant. Therefore, the said - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7515 WP No. 25551 of 2025 application is hereby rejected and I answer this point No.1 in Negative. 7. POINT No.2:- For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:- O R D E R I.A.No.2 filed by the impleading applicant under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w Sec.151 of CPC is hereby dismissed.” 3. As can be seen from the Trial Court, the Trial Court came to the correct conclusion that in a suit for bare / permanent injunction simpliciter filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4 against respondent Nos.5 and 6, the petitioner, against whom no relief was sought for nor any averment made in relation to the petitioner, was not a proper or necessary party to the suit and in the light of the principles relating to impleadment of parties as enunciated by the Apex Court with reference to the plaintiff being Dominus litis in M/s. J N Real Estate Vs. Shailendra Pradhan & others in Civil Appeal Nos..5405-5406/2025 [SLP (C) Nos.12205-12206/2024] and NAK Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Tarun Keshrichand Shah and Others in Special Leave to Appeal Nos.6024-6025/2022, I am of the considered opinion that the Trial - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7515 WP No. 25551 of 2025 Court was fully justified in rejecting the impleadment application filed by the petitioner by reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to take recourse to such remedies as available in law. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to be capricious or perverse or have occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in the present petition as held by the Apex Court in the case (i) Radhey Shyam and Another Vs. Chhabi Nath and Ors. reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423 (ii) K.P. Natarajan and Another Vs. Muthalammal & Ors. reported in AIR 2021 SC 3443 and (iii) Mohamed Ali Vs. Jaya & Ors. reported in (2022) 10 SCC 477. ORDER i. The petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. ii. It is however made clear that the impugned order and/or any other order, judgment, decree, compromise, etc., passed/to be passed in O.S. No.4288/2021 will not be binding upon the petitioner nor will it affect the right, title, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7515 WP No. 25551 of 2025 interest, possession, etc., if any, of the petitioner over the suit schedule property. iii. Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to take recourse to such remedies as available in law, including filing a separate suit and all rival contentions in this regard are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MBM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8