Karnataka High Court
Smt. Lakshmi Devi Goenka vs Sri N Bhaskar on 29 August, 2025
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:33720
WP No. 5166 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 5166 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI GOENKA,
W/O LATE SHIVA SHANAKR GOENKA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT NO. 206, PRESTIGE ACROPOLIS
OLYMPUS 3, KORAMANGALA
HOSUR ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 029.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MADHUKAR M DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally 1. SRI N. BHASKAR,
signed by
SUMA B N S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH
Location:
HIGH COURT AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
OF
KARNATAKA R/AT NO. 1291/1292
9TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH CROSS
SRINIVASA NAGAR
BANASHANKARI III STAGE
BANGALORE - 560 085.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU
MAHANAGARA PALIKE
HEAD OFFICE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:33720
WP No. 5166 of 2024
HC-KAR
HUDSON CIRCLE
N.R. SQUARE
BENGALURU - 560 002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.M. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. M.R. SINCHANA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.12.2023
PASSED BY THE HONBLE XIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-18) IN O.S NO.
1107/2018, (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW
THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 1
RULE 10 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 (I.A.NO. 9)
FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN O.S.NO. 1107/2018
(ANNEXURE-G).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
ORAL ORDER
This petition is against the order dated 12.12.2023 passed
by the trial Court in O.S.No.1107/2018 rejecting the application
filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking to implead the
Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike-BBMP as
party defendant to the suit.
NC: 2025:KHC:33720
HC-KAR
2. Present suit is for bare injunction filed by the
petitioner/plaintiff against the respondent No.1/defendant No.1
seeking relief of judgment and decree restraining the
respondent/defendant from interfering with `B' schedule
property which according to the petitioner/plaintiff is a road, by
putting up wall and causing impediment to the
petitioner/plaintiff in having free ingress and egress.
3. Respondent/defendant on the other hand claims the
said schedule property to be his absolute property and not a
road as claimed by the petitioner/plaintiff.
4. Petitioner in the circumstances has filed an application
under I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC seeking to implead
The Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike-BBMP
as party respondent/defendant to said suit, which came to be
rejected by the trial Court holding that the Commissioner,
BBMP is neither necessary nor proper party to the suit.
Aggrieved by which the present petition.
5. Heard and perused the records.
NC: 2025:KHC:33720
HC-KAR
6. Since, the dispute is in respect of `B' Schedule
property, which petitioner/plaintiff claims to be a public road
while the respondent/defendant claims to be his absolute
property, the presence of the Commissioner, BBMP for
adjudication of the suit specifically for the relief of bare
injunction is of no consequence. Even as admitted by learned
counsel for petitioner/plaintiff no relief is sought against the
BBMP. In that view of the matter rejection of application filed
under Order I Rule 10 CPC by the trial Court cannot be found to
be irregular or illegal.
In the circumstances, reserving liberty to the petitioner
to seek such other remedy as may be available under law,
petition is disposed of, as the same does not merit
consideration.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE
SBN
