- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7616 WP No. 5429 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.5429 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. MUNINARASIMHAMURTHY S/O LATE MUNIVENKATARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT SIDDHARTHA NAGAR, WARD NO.9, AK COLONY, SIDLAGHATTA TOWN-562105, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. 2. NARASHIMMURTY, S/O LATE LAKSHMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/A SIDDHARTHA NAGAR, WARD NO.9, AK COLONY, SIDLAGHATTA TOWN-562105, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHETHAN A.C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. A. RAJA KUMAR S/O LATE G. ANKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A WARD NO.9, BYPASS ROAD, GURUPPANA LAYOUT, SIDLAGHATTA TOWN - 562105, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. 2. KRISHNA MURTHY, S/O MALURNARASIMHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT SIDDHARTHA NAGARA, Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7616 WP No. 5429 of 2025 SIDLAGHATTA TOWN-562105, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. 3. MUNINARASIMHA, S/O POOJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT SIDDHARTHA NAGARA, SIDLAGHATTA TOWN-562105, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. 4. SURESH S/O RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/A NAGALA MADDAMMA ROAD, OPP GOVT HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, RESHME CIRCLE, SIDLAGHATTA TOWN-562105, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. 5. NARASIMHA, S/O MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT SIDDHARTHA NAGAR, SIDLAGHATTA TOWN-562105, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. UMESH R.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 TO R5 ARE SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.04.2024 IN O.S.NO.49/2019 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIDLAGHATTA DISMISSING IA NO.22 FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) R/W SECTION 151 CPC 1908 (ANNX-A) AND ALLOW IA NO.22 FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7616 WP No. 5429 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: "1. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 24.04.2024 in O.S.No.49/2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sidlaghatta dismissing I.A.No.22 filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908, Annexure-A; and 2. Allow I.A.No.22 filed by the petitioner herein; and 3. Pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to pass in the interests of justice and equity." 2. This petition by the impleading applicant in O.S.No.49/2019 is directed against the impugned order dated 24.04.2024 whereby the application filed by the petitioner/impleading applicant under Order I Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure seeking for impleading the applicants as additional defendants in the suit was rejected by the Trial Court. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7616 WP No. 5429 of 2025 4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent No.1/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondent Nos.2 to 5/defendants for declaration of title, permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule properties. 5. In this context, the plaint averments indicate that it is specifically contended by the plaintiff that the suit schedule properties were being used for burial purposes as a burial ground by the defendants without having any right over the same and as such, the plaintiff was owner in lawful and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The defendants filed the written statement disputing and denying the claim of the plaintiff and inter alia contending that the suit schedule properties were burial grounds which were being used by the villagers belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community for burial purpose and as such, the plaintiff did not have any right over the properties and the suit was liable to be dismissed. 6. After completion of evidence of both sides and at the stage of final arguments, the petitioner who are additional villagers belonging to the same Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7616 WP No. 5429 of 2025 community sought for impleadment on the ground that any order, judgment, decree etc., to be passed in the suit would affect their rights of burial over the suit schedule properties and the usage of the suit schedule properties as a burial ground. 7. The said application having been opposed by the plaintiff, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejected the application hereunder: "ORDER ON IA NO - 22 The applicant No.1 has filed IA No. 22 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) R/w Sec 151 CPC., praying that implead the below said applicants as proposed defendants No.5 and 6 in this proceedings to know the real controversy involved in the proceedings between the parties and properties in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. 2. Along with application, the the applicant No. 1 has filed affidavit stating that the land beings Sy. No. 554/1, 554/2, 554/3 total an extent of 0-12.08.00 and 0-07.08.00 guntas, situated at Sidlaghatta Village, Kasaba Hobli, Sidlaghatta Taluk, Chikkaballapur District. The said survey numbers was identified for burial grounds for SC and ST peoples. As per letter dated: 02.11.2022 issued by Taluk Social Welfare Office shows that ಸದ ಜೕನ ಾವೇ ತರಾದ ಮರಗಳ, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7616 WP No. 5429 of 2025 ಕಟಡಗಳ, ಕುಂೆ, ೇವಾ ನ, !ಾ"ಗಳ ಇರುವ$ಲ &ಾಗೂ !ೆ(ೆ ಅ*ೆ+ಂ, !ಾ-ಗಳ ಈ/ಾಗ(ೇ ಭೂಾ+1ೕನ*ೆ2 3ೆ/ೆದು*ೊಂ-ರುವ 4ಾಗವ 554 ರ ಸ56ಾನಾ7ರುತ8ೆ &ಾಗೂ ಸ56ಾನ*ೆ2 ಉಪ;ೕ7<ರು3ಾ8=ೆ. As per letter dated 25.11.2021 the Tahasildar letter to Assistant Commissioner of Chikkaballapura has clearly shows that the survey number 554/1, 554/2, 554/3, d«ÄãÀÄUÀ½UÉ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ¨sÀÆ ªÀiÁ¥ÁPÀgÀÄ >ಡ ಘಟ ಮತು8 ಕಸ!ಾ =ಾಜಸ+ ೕ@ಕರ ಸುªÀÄÄäಖದ ಜಂB ಸೆC *ಾಯC Eಾ-ಾಗ ಸದ ಜೕನ ಾವೇ ತರಹ ಮರಗಳ ಕಟಡಗಳ ೇವಾ ನ !ಾ"ಗಳ ಇರುವ$ಲ ಈ/ಾಗ(ೇ ಭೂಾ+1ೕನ*ೆ2 3ೆ/ೆದು*ೊಂ-ರುವ 4ಾಗವ ಸ56ಾನಾ7ರುತ8ೆ. &ಾಗೂ ಸ56ಾನ*ೆ2 ಉಪ;ೕ7<ರು3ಾ8=ೆ. ಸ56ಾನ*ೆ2 ಶವ ಸಂಾ2ರ Eಾಡಲು ನಗರ ಸHೆIಂದ *ೊಠ- C<ರು3ಾ8=ೆ. and also The Government of Karnataka identified the said survey numbers as under acquisition for burial grounds of SC and ST people and the learned Tahasildar has letter correspondents to Assistant Commissioner and other department and herewith furnishing documents. 3. The applicant has further stated that the plaintiff made false representation before the Municipal authority and taking advantage and collude with Municipal officials they have created documents in favour of plaintiff to producing illegal and fabricate documents created by plaintiff with respect to suit schedule properties, after due enquiry the Municipal authority has rightly cancel said documents as stated ನಗರ !ೈLಾM ರೆ8ಯ ರುವ ಸೆC ನಂ. 554/1, 554/2, 554/3 ರ ಜೕನ ಸಂಬಂಧ - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7616 WP No. 5429 of 2025 &ಾವ ತಪP EಾQRಯನುS ೕ- ನಗರ ಸHೆಯ Tಾ3ೆ Eಾ-*ೊಂ-ದುU, ಇದ*ೆ2 ಸಂಬಂ1<ದಂ3ೆ, $Vಾಂಕ: 18.10.2020 ರಂದು ಈ ಕWೇಯ ಕಂಾಯ ಅ1*ಾ ಮತು8 ಸ&ಾಯ ಅXYೕತರರು ಸ ಳ ತTೆ Eಾ- ಸದ 4ಾಗದ ಪ>ಷ 4ಾR ಮತು8 ¥ÀAಗಡ ಜVಾಂಗದ ºÉಣಗಳನುS ಹೂಳR8ಾU=ೆ ಎಂದು ವರ$ಯನುS ೕ-ರು3ಾ8=ೆ. ಸದ ವರ$ ಆ^ಾರದ _ೕ(ೆ $Vಾಂಕ: 12.12.2022 ರಂದು Tಾ3ೆ ವ4ಾ ಆ7ರುತ8ೆ. As per letter dated 18.10.2021 Municipal authority letter to Tahasildar in that letter as clearly shows that, _ೕ ನ "ಷಯ*ೆ2 ಸಂಬಂ1<ದಂ3ೆ >ಡ ಘಟ ನಗರ ಸHೆ ಾ`a8ಯ ಾbC ಸಂTೆ`: 09 ರ &ಾ ಪ>ಷ 4ಾR ಮತು8 ಪ>ಷ ಪಂಗಡದವ/ೆ *ಾIUಸದಂ3ೆ ಸ56ಾನ 4ಾಗ"ರುತ8ೆ. ಸದ ಸುಪcತ 554/1, 554/2, 554/3 4ಾಗವ ನಗರ ಸHೆ ಕWೇIಂದ 650 ೕಟರ ದೂರದ ರುತ8ೆ. &ಾಗೂ ಈ 4ಾಗವ ನಗರಸHೆ/ೆ ೇದ ಾbC ಸಂTೆ`: 9ರ ಾ`a8/ೆ ಬರುತ8ೆ. &ಾ ಇರುವ ಸ56ಾನದ ಪ>ಷ 4ಾR ಪ>ಷ ಪಂಗಡದವರು &ೆಣಗಳನುS ಹೂಳR8ರು3ಾ8=ೆಂದು ವರ$ಯನುS ೕ-ರು3ಾ8=ೆ. his father and applicant No. 2 mother buried in suit schedule property and also other peoples in Siddharth Nagara their ancestors also buried in the suit schedule property. Hence, the proposed applicant No. 1 and 2 are necessary and proper parties in this proceedings to know the real controversy involved between the parties and suit schedule properties in this proceedings. The plaintiff as suppering the material facts the plaintiff has trying to mislead this Hon'ble court. The plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. As the documents, statements clearly shows, hence the applicant are very - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7616 WP No. 5429 of 2025 essential to the proceedings to resolved the controversy between the parties in suit schedule property. Hence, application may be allowed. 4. The advocate for plaintiff has filed objection contending that, the Applicant No.1 Muninarasimhamurthy has sworn to a false affidavit. The allegations made in para 3 to 5 of the affidavit are all hereby denied as false and untenable. The application is filed in-collusion with the defendants in order to prevent the Hon'ble Court from pronouncing the judgment. The defendant has been in the habit of filing IA's after IA's as could be seen from the court records. He has done so in order to protract the proceedings and harass the plaintiff, the applicants are related to defendant No.1 Krishna murthy. Applicant No.1 Muninarasimhamurthy is closely related to Krishnamurthy. Krishnamurthy's Mother and Muninarasimhamurthy's mother are sisters. The applicant No.2 Narasimhamurthy S/o Lakshmappa is also a close relative of Krishnamurthy. The father in law of Krishnamurthy and father of applicant No.2 namely Lakshmappa are brothers. Therefore, in order to illegally help Krishnamurthy, the applicants have approached the Hon'ble Court with false facts and records. 5. It is false to allege that Sy. No. 554/1 and 554/3 and 554/2 are government lands. It is false to allege that Government has identified by the above land as burial ground for the SC and ST people. The plaintiff is not aware of the allegation that applicant No.1's father died on 15.12.2016 and mother of the second applicant died on 27.05.2021. It is absolutely - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7616 WP No. 5429 of 2025 false to allege that the deceased are buried in the said property. It is false to allege that they are performing poojas as their culture and nativity and have very emotional affection towards them. It is false to allege that the plaintiff is not in physical possession of the property. The applicant has produced several documents which do not disclose any legal right, or civil right interest, or claim over the suit property by the applicants. The documents produced though not admitted by the plaintiff, they don't disclose that the father of 1 applicant and mother of second applicant are buried in the suit property. Upon reading on the documents produced by the applicants it shows that Government tried to acquire the suit property from the plaintiff for the purpose of the burial ground., but the same is not pursued. Further the document produced also show that the owner and person in possession of the suit property to be the plaintiff, the applicants have also produced an undated mahazar which is a fabricated document which also do not support the applicants false case. Therefore, the applicants have no direct or consequential right to be impleaded as defendants. It is stated that the plaintiff is the 'dominus Litis' in a suit. The plaintiff has been given power to name any defendant of his choice in a litigation. Unless the proposed defendants show any semblance of right, title interest or claim over the suit property so that they become necessary parties, then only the Hon'ble Court can implead them. In this case, upon reading of the affidavit and the documents the applicants have not even alleged their interest except alleging that the deceased are buried their. If It is so [not admitted on facts] - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7616 WP No. 5429 of 2025 the applicants may have to file a separate independent suit and they cannot come on record as additional defendants in the above case. The applicants are not necessary and proper parties as their presence not required for effectively completely, adjudicate the questions which has arisen in the suit. They are not proper and necessary parties. 6. As held in ILR 2005 page 1341 at para 8 "the criteria is the presence of a party may be necessary to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settled all questions involved in the suit if it is not so a person cannot be implead as a party. Further in para 11 the Hon'ble Court the presence or absence of the proposed party is not of any consequence because without the presence of the proposed party the appeal could be decided effectively and completely and not that it cannot be decided. So, also in this case the presence or absence of the applicants is of no consequence and even in the absence of the applicants the suit could be disposed off effectively and completely." "It has also been held in a case reported in AIR 1993 Allahabad page 8 para 6 that the plaintiff has right to choose his own advisory against whom he seeks relief." Hence, application may be dismissed. 7. Heard and Perused the records. After hearing the learned counsels appearing for the parties, on IA.No.22, the following points which arise for my consideration: POINTS - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7616 WP No. 5429 of 2025 1. Whether the petitioners have made out a ground to that they are the necessary party in the suit proceedings? 2. What order? 8. After going though the records and hearing the counsel for parties, I answer the above points as follow: Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: As per final order for the following: REASONS 9. Point No.1: The plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendants for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule properties. 10. The defendants were filed written statement denied the claim of plaintiff. 11. Issues framed based on the pleadings evidence of both parties recorded now the case posted for arguments at this stage. The advocate for applicants had filed this application. 12. Admittedly, the plaintiff has filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction who are denied the title of plaintiff and interference of the peaceful possession of plaintiff those persons against filed this suit. 13. The applicants though they have denied the ownership and possession of plaintiff, but plaintiff has not filed suit against the applicants. The plaintiff is master of his case. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7616 WP No. 5429 of 2025 14. If really the suit property reserved for burial ground of SC and ST people. The applicants will protect their property filing another suit against the plaintiff. Because, the plaintiff has not sought relief against applicants. If the government reserved the suit property to burial grounds they would have taken action against the plaintiff. 15. The presence of the petitioners not required in order to decide the rights of the parties involved between the plaintiff and defendants pertaining to the suit schedule properties, and their presence is not required for proper effective adjudication involved in the suit. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that, the petitioners are not a necessary party or proper party and their presence are not essential to effective determination issue involved in the suit. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative. 16. Point No. 2: For the reasons stated and discussion made above, I pass the following:- ORDER The application filed by the advocate for 1" applicant petitioners under Order 1 Rule CINIL10(2) R/W Sec 151 of CPC, is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs." - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7616 WP No. 5429 of 2025 8. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the Trial Court has taken into account well settled principles of law governing and addition/deletion of parties including the fact that the plaintiff being the dominus litis cannot be compelled to implead all the villagers belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community for the purpose of the instant suit filed by him only as against the defendants. At any rate, it is needless to state that in the event the defendants succeed in the suit and the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the suit schedule properties are indeed a burial ground, the said judgment and decree to be passed by the trial Court would enure to the benefit of all villagers belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community including the petitioners herein. 9. It is also pertinent to note that in the event the Trial Court were to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff against the existing defendant Nos.1 to 4, the petitioners would be entitled to challenge the same by ventilating their grievances in accordance with law. 10. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court cannot - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7616 WP No. 5429 of 2025 be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to have caused failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of without interfering with the impugned order and reserving liberty in favour of the petitioners to take recourse to such remedies as available in law. 12. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit on or before 30.04.2026. SD/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MR