Karnataka High Court
Sri G Sudhir Reddy vs Sri Maqsood M Ali on 21 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:10854
WP No. 5561 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
WRIT PETITION NO.5561 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI G.SUDHIR REDDY,
SON OF SRI.G.NARAYANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
NO.42, K.T.ROAD, 5TH CROSS,
T.DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 057.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAHUL DEV S DESHAMUDRE., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI.MAQSOOD M. ALI,
S/O LATE MEHMOOD ALI,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
2. SRI.ABDUR REHMAN,
S/O SRI. MAQSOOD M. ALI,
Digitally
signed by AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
KAVYA G
3. MS.TASMIA,
Location:
High Court D/O SRI. MAQSOOD M. ALI,
of AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
Karnataka
4. M/S. MAQSOOD AND MAQDOOM,
BENEFIT TRUST
REP. BY SRI MAQSOOD M. ALI, (TRUSTEE),
R1 TO R4 ARE R/AT:
C/O. ALI ESTATE,
VASUDEVAPURA VILLAGE,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-560 064.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:10854
WP No. 5561 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING (A) TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.12.2025 PASSED BY THE XL
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN
OS NO.5592/2016 ON IA NO.12 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:
(a) Set aside the impugned order dated 18.12.2025, passed by the XL Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru, in O.S.No.5592 of 2016 on I.A.No.12 (Annexure-A); and
(b) Allow I.A.No.12 (Annexure-G) filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.5592 of 2016 before the XL Additional City civil and Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru; or Pass such other or further Orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interests of justice and equity."
2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.5592/2016. I.A.No.12 was filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10(2) -3- NC: 2026:KHC:10854 WP No. 5561 of 2026 HC-KAR read with Section 151 CPC to strike out defendant No.4 from the array of parties. The ground raised in the affidavit filed in support of the said application is that the defendants along with their henchmen have over the years made multiple attempts to interfere with the plaintiff's possession. The defendants have filed multiple collusive and baseless suits against the plaintiff and his predecessors in title in respect of the suit property, one such suit being O.S.No.7603/2014, which was filed by defendant No.4 seeking declaration that the sale deed executed in the year 2012 was null and void and not binding on defendant No.4/trust. It is further stated that defendant No.4 had suppressed the trust deed by which it was incorporated in the said suit. The suit was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Against the said judgment and decree and an appeal is pending before the High Court. It is stated that the plaintiff had recently learnt that defendant No.4/trust is no longer in subsistence and litigation is being instituted on its behalf without any lawful authority. The trust deed has expired. The aforesaid IA was opposed by defendant No.4 stating that the plaintiff under a void registered sale deed is claiming to be the owner of the trust property and the co-trustee is not a -4- NC: 2026:KHC:10854 WP No. 5561 of 2026 HC-KAR vendor to the plaintiff and there is no division of trust property and the trust is not dissolved by due process of law.
3. The points that fell for consideration of the trial Court were as follows:
(1) Whether the plaintiff has made out a case to allow the application and strike out defendant No.4 from array of parties?
(2) What Order?
4. The trial Court noted that multiple suits in respect of the suit property has been filed between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 and many suits are still pending for consideration before various Courts and a matter is pending before the High Court of Karnataka. This shows that defendant No.4 trust is asserting a right over the suit schedule property. It was noted that defendant No.4 had also represented that the trust had executed an irrevocable General Power of Attorney in favour of one Rajeev Kumar and he has a subsisting right over the scheduled property.
5. The argument of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff was noted by the trial Court that the plaintiff being the -5- NC: 2026:KHC:10854 WP No. 5561 of 2026 HC-KAR dominus litis cannot be compelled to proceed against whom he does not claim any relief. But since defendant No.4 is not necessary party, the plaintiff cannot be compelled to proceed against him. Since defendant No.4 trust is not a legal entity, it cannot be sued. The trial Court noted that the only reason which makes it necessary to make a person a party to an action is that he should be bound by the decree and therefore there must be a question which cannot be effectually and completely settled unless he is a party to the suit. It was therefore held that when defendant No.4 claims to have a subsisting right and when the interest of the trust is involved in the trust property, for purpose of effective adjudication of the controversy involved, the presence of defendant No.4 is very much necessary. Accordingly, I.A.No.12 was dismissed.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the written statement filed by the defendants in the aforesaid O.S.No.5592/2016. Evident it is from perusal of the plaint that a counter claim with regard to the sale deed of the plaintiff dated 30.04.2012 has been raised seeking to declare it as ab-initio, null and void and not binding upon the defendants' Maqsood and Maqdoom Benefit Trust. It is stated that multiple -6- NC: 2026:KHC:10854 WP No. 5561 of 2026 HC-KAR such claims are being set up by the defendants for which it is essential that defendant No.4 be permitted to be deleted from the array of parties in the suit.
7. In my considered opinion, a counter claim has been raised on behalf of defendant No.4 in the aforesaid suit. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner states that aforesaid written statement is only by defendant No.1 and not by defendant No.4, this Court finds from perusal of Annexure-D, that the counter claim is sought to be raised in respect of all the defendants.
8. Since multiple suits are stated to be pending between the parties, and a counter claim has been set up in the present suit by the defendants with regard to the suit schedule property, it cannot be said that defendant No.4 is not a necessary or proper party in the suit that would entitle the petitioner to seek the relief claimed for in I.A.No.12. Under the circumstances, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the impugned order. This petition is therefore dismissed. -7-
NC: 2026:KHC:10854 WP No. 5561 of 2026 HC-KAR
9. The Registry of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the concerned trial Court within fifteen days from today so that it is kept on the record.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE KSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11