- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7980 WP No. 486 of 2026 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. 486 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SHRI D VENKATESHAMURTHY S/O LATE A. V. DEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 18/1, 14TH CROSS, 18TH MAIN, PADMANABHANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 070. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESH CHANDRA, ADV. FOR SRI. ANANTHAPADMANABHA G N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRUI MUNIRAJU S/O LATE CHIKKAMARAPPA @ PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/A KAMAIAHNAPALYA VILLAGE K. GOLLAHALLI POST, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK 2. SHRI. MUNIRAJU S/O PAPANNA @ MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/A CHOWDESHWARI FARM, BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE, DODDASANE POST, DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562110 Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7980 WP No. 486 of 2026 3. SMT. G. UMA W/O SHRI. M. MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE, R/A CHOWDESHWARI FARM, DODDASANE POST, DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562110 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.RAJASHEKAR, ADV. FOR C/R2 & R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.1013/2011 PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL 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.1013/2011 on the file of II Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, is directed against the impugned order dated 19.12.2025 passed on the impleadment application filed by the petitioner/ impleading applicant, which was dismissed by the Trial Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7980 WP No. 486 of 2026 2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the 1st respondent-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against respondent Nos.2 and 3 for a declaration that the gift deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No. 2 dated 17.12.2009 was 'null and void' and not binding upon the plaintiff and for permanent injunction and other reliefs. The said suit is being contested by the defendants. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner-applicant filed the instant impleadment application interalia contending that he had obtained a sale agreement dated 14.08.2020 from the plaintiff and his children and as such, the petitioner was both a proper and necessary party to the suit. The said application having been opposed by the defendants, the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned order by rejecting the impleading application, aggrieved by which, the petitioner- impleading applicant is before this Court by way of the present petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7980 WP No. 486 of 2026 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for caveator / respondents 2 and 3 and perused the material on record. 4. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that the trial court has come to the correct conclusion that the petitioner-impleading applicant is neither a proper nor necessary party to the suit; however the petitioner would be entitled to take recourse to such remedies as available in law, including filing a separate suit either only against plaintiff or against defendants also. 5. Under these circumstances, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, which cannot be said to be perverse or capricious nor the same said to have occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of (i) Radhey Shyam & others Vs. Chhabi - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7980 WP No. 486 of 2026 Nath & others (2015) 5 SCC 423 (ii) K.P.Natarajan & others Vs. Muthalammal & others AIR 2021 SC 3443 (iii) Mohammed Ali Vs. Jaya (2022) 10 SCC 477. 6. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) Petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order passed by the trial court. ii) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. iii) However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to take recourse to such remedies as available in law. iv) All rival contentions between the parties are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE DH/SRL List No.: 2 Sl No.: 16