- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10130 WP No. 6051 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 6051 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MRS. B SHAKUNTHALA W/O LATE M PADMANABHA CHOUTA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT 601 DIVYASHREE APARTMENTS BEJAI KAPIKAD ROAD NEAR BALIGA STORE BEJAI MANAGALORE 575 004 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. SEETHARAMA SHETTY S/O LATE KARIYAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT KUMBASRI 1ST FLOOR KARNAD SADASHIVA RAO ROAD KAKLAR KANAKANADY VILLAGE MANGALORE 575 007 2. MRS SUMITHRA W/O SIDDU AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT MANJUNATH NILAYA SHIVANAGAR 6TH CROSS PANDESHWARA MANGALORE 575 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. THANIMA BEKAL., ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 28.02.2025, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO PRAYING TO-SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 20.06.2024 AND THEREBY SET ASIDE THE Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10130 WP No. 6051 of 2025 ORDER DTD 05.02.2025 PASSED IN OS NO. 264/2022 ON IA NOs.6 AND 7 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, AT MANGALORE, VIDE ANNEXURES-A AND A1. 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.264/2022 is directed against the impugned orders dated 20.06.2024 and 05.02.2025, whereby the application I.A.No.6 filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 CPC (Order XXII Rule 10 CPC) to come on record as additional plaintiff No.2 was rejected by the trial Court, which also dismissed the review application I.A.No.7 filed by the petitioner by passing the impugned orders, which are assailed in the present petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the aforesaid suit filed by the respondent No.2-plaintiff against the respondent No.1 - defendant for permanent injunction and other - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10130 WP No. 6051 of 2025 reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property, the petitioner/impleading applicant sought for impleadment on the ground that the petitioner had earlier obtained a sale agreement dated 08.08.2022 from the sole plaintiff, which culminated in a registered Sale Deed dated 12.12.2023 during the pendency of the suit and as such, having regard to the devolution of the interest in the suit schedule immovable property during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner was entitled to get herself impleaded as additional plaintiff No.2 in the suit. It is a matter of record and an undisputed fact that the sole plaintiff did not oppose the said application which was only opposed by the sole defendant and culminated in the impugned order, whereby the trial Court rejected the application. 4. In my considered opinion, the reasoning of the trial Court and the findings recorded by it are clearly erroneous inasmuch as the sole reason assigned by the trial Court is that the petitioner ought to have filed an application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC and not under Order I Rule 10 CPC. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the trial Court has come to the erroneous conclusion that the impleading applicant ought to have - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10130 WP No. 6051 of 2025 invoked Order XXII Rule 10 CPC instead of Order I Rule 10 CPC without appreciating that mere citing/quoting of a wrong provision would not come in the way of considering an application in accordance with the appropriate provision. So also, the trial Court erred in failing to appreciate that the merits of the claim of the petitioner cannot be gone into while considering an impleadment/substitution application and on this ground also, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. At any rate, since the respondent No.1/defendant would be entitled to put forth all contentions including contentions as regards the claim of the petitioner, it cannot be said any prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if the impleadment application filed by her was allowed. 5. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the trial Court has occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby allowed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10130 WP No. 6051 of 2025 ii) The impugned orders dated 20.06.2024 and 05.02.2025 on I.A.Nos.6 and 7 in O.S.No.264/2022 on the file of the V Additional Civil Judge, Mangaluru, is hereby set aside. iii) I.A.No.6 under Order I Rule 10 CPC (Order XXII Rule 10 CPC) is hereby allowed. iv) Liberty is also reserved in favour of the petitioner and respondent No.1 to file additional pleadings in support of their respective claims. v) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept/left open and no opinion is expressed on merits/demerits of the rival contentions. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 3 Sl No.: 40