- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9321 WP No. 3598 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.3598 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI B V SRIDHARA S/O B.L.VEERANNAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT BYALADAKERE VILLAGE BELLUR HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAYANNA GOWDA N R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI LAKSHMAMMA C N W/O SRI.MAHESHA.B.V., AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT BYALADAKERE VILLAGE BELLUR HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 432 2. SRI.B.L.VEERANNA GOWDA S/O SRI. LAKKANAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT BYALADAKERE VILLAGE BELLUR HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 432 …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9321 WP No. 3598 of 2026 NAGAMANGALA ON I.A.NO.1/2025 UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) OF C.P.C, IN O.S.NO.149/2024 DATED 12.08.2025, AS PER ANNEXURE- F. 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.149/2024 is directed against the impugned order at Annexure – F dated 12.08.2025 passed on I.A.No.1 by the Civil Judge & JMFC, Nagamangala, whereby the said application filed by the petitioner- impleading applicant seeking impleadment was rejected by the Trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner 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 in O.S.No.149/2024 against respondent No.2-defendant for specific performance and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. In the said suit, the petitioner herein claiming to be the son of the defendant – B.L.Veerannagowda having - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9321 WP No. 3598 of 2026 obtained a decree in O.S.No.220/2024 sought for impleadment in the present suit by filing the instant application, which was opposed by the respondent No.1-plaintiff and dismissed by the Trial Court vide impugned order, which reads as under: “ORDERS ON IA No.I The applicant/proposed party has filed this application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC., seeking permission of the court to come on record as defendant No.2. 2. The application is appended with the affidavit of proposed party. 2 O.S.No.149/2024 In the affidavit, it is stated that, the plaintiff has filed suit for the relief of specific performance of contract in respect to suit schedule property. He know the facts and circumstances of the case. He had filed suit at O.S.No.220/2024 in respect of his family properties. In the said suit, item No.8 is subject matter of the present suit and same was decreed on 12.03.2025. Hence, it is prayed to implead him as defendant No.2. The proposed party is necessary and proper party to the suit. In his absence suit cannot be decided effectively and completely. His presence is necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute involved in the case. It is also contended that, if the application is allowed, no hardship will be caused to the other side or defendant. On the other hand, if the application is rejected untold hardship will be caused to proposed party. Hence, it - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9321 WP No. 3598 of 2026 is prayed to implead the proposed party as defendant No.2. 3. On the other hand, the plaintiff filed objection by contending that the application is not maintainable in the eye of law and liable to be rejected. There is no valid grounds to allow the application. The plaintiff and defendant have entered into agreement of sale and suit is in respect of the same. The proposed party is not necessary party to the present suit. But, now the proposed party with an intention to drag 3 O.S.No.149/2024 on the proceedings, filed this false application. Hence, it is prayed to rejected the application. 4. Heard both side and perused the records. 5. Upon hearing arguments and on perusal of materials placed on record the following points that arisen for consideration:- 1. Whether the presence of proposed party is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute completely and finally? 2. What order? 6. My findings to the above points are as under:- Point No.1 : In the Negative, Point No.2 : As per final order, for the following:- R E A S O N S 7. Point No.1:- The plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendant for the relief of specific performance of contract in respect of suit property. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9321 WP No. 3598 of 2026 8. Here in the present case, the proposed party has filed this application seeking permission of the Court to come on record as defendant No.2 on the ground that he had filed suit for partition and separate possession and same was decreed. In the said suit, subject 4 O.S.No.149/2024 matter of the present suit also included. Therefore, he is necessary party to the suit. 9. Before adverting to the facts of the case, this court is of the opinion that, it is relevant to refer the provision of order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC. ORDER-1 PARTIES TO SUITS Rule 10. Suit in name of wrong plaintiff- (1) ******** (2) Court may strike out or add parties: The court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff of defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. (3)******** - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9321 WP No. 3598 of 2026 (4)********* (5)********* 10. In view of the above referred provision, it is very clear that, the court may at any stage of the proceedings either upon or without application strike out or add any parties, whose presence may be necessary in order to unable the court effectively and completely to adjudicate to dispute involved. So, the court may add or strike out any persons whose presence is necessary and proper to decide the dispute effectively and completely. 11. Now, coming to the case on hand, this is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for the relief of specific performance of contract. The disputes involved in the present suit is firstly, execution of suit agreement by the defendant in favour of plaintiff agreeing to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. Secondly, passing of part consideration by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant. Thirdly, readiness and willingness of the plaintiff in performing his part of contract. 12. So, the partition suit filed by proposed party and its judgment is nothing to do with the disputes to be decided in the present suit. At the most, suit agreement binds the share of defendant. 6 O.S.No.149/2024 13. Further, how the presence of proposed party is necessary to decide the dispute involved in the suit is also not properly explained. Even, there is no documents is placed on record by the proposed party. Therefore, the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9321 WP No. 3598 of 2026 presence of the proposed party is not necessary to adjudicate the dispute involved in the case. Hence, there is no merits in the application. Hence, this court answered point No.1 is in the Negative. 14. Point No.2. For the reason assigned above, this court proceeds to pass the following:- O R D E R I.A.No.I filed by the applicant/proposed party under Order I Rule 10 (2) of CPC is hereby rejected. No order as to cost.” 4. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the Trial Court came to the correct conclusion that the petitioner, who is not a party to the Sale Agreement said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff cannot be permitted to be impleaded as an additional defendant in the suit in the light of the principles enunciated in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal and Ors (2005 INSC 228) and which has been followed subsequently in several judgments of the Apex Court and this Court. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9321 WP No. 3598 of 2026 5. Under these circumstances and in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the aforesaid case, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court rejecting application – I.A.No.I does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held in 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. 6. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. (ii) It is made clear that any judgment, decree passed in the aforesaid O.S.No.149/2024 will not be binding upon the petitioner nor will it affect his alleged rights over the suit schedule property. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26