Karnataka High Court
Sri. Saravanan M Pethi vs Sri Jayaprakash on 23 July, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:27957
WP No. 19708 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 19708 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI SARAVANAN M. PETHI
S/O T.R. MUTHUSELVAM
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/O 105, SELVAM INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
A.D. HALLI
HOUSING BOARD BUS STOP
BENGALURU - 560 079.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ADARSHA K.K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI JAYAPRAKASH
S/O MUNINAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
Digitally signed by R/O NO. 2, 1/1, NANDANAVANA,
NAGAVENI
Location: High G.STREET, JOGU PALYA, ULSOOR,
Court of Karnataka
BENGALURU - 560 008.
2. SRI M. KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O MUNINANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/O D.NO.21/1,
NANDANAVANAM,
G. STREET, ULSOOR
BENGALURU - 560 008.
3. SMT. M. VARALAKSHMI
W/O SRI AMAR NARAYAN
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:27957
WP No. 19708 of 2025
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/O D.NO.21/1 NANDANAVANAM,
G STREET, ULSURU
BENGALURU - 560 008.
4. SMT. M. PADMAVATHI
W/O LATE JAGADEESH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/O D.NO.21/1,
NANDANAVANAM,
G STREET, ULSURU
BENGALURU - 560 008.
5. SMT. M. SHARADA
W/O LATE MUNIKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
R/O D.NO.28/3,
MARENAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
20TH MAIN, VIDYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 040.
6. SMT. SUJATHA
W/O. LATE M. RAMA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/O D.NO.28/3,
MARENAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
20TH MAIN, VIDYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 040.
7. SRI MADAN KUMAR
S/O LATE MURU KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/O D.NO.28/3, MARENAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
20TH MAIN VIDYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 040.
8. SMT. B. SUJATHA
W/O N. BUNTY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/O D.21/1, KV LANE
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:27957
WP No. 19708 of 2025
HC-KAR
COTTON PET,
BENGALURU - 560 053.
9. SMT. M. VARALAKSHMI
W/O. LATE M. GOPAL
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/O D.NO.5, 2ND MAIN
3RD CROSS, GOVINDARAJA NAGAR,
VIJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 040.
10. SMT. G. GAYATHRI,
W/O KEMPURAJU
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/O D. NO. 5, 2ND MAIN
3RD CROSS, GOVINDARAJA NAGARA
VIJAYA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 040.
11. SRI. G. MUNI ARASA,
S/O LATE M. GOPAL
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/O D.NO.5, 2ND MAIN
3RD CROSS, GOVINDARAJA NAGARA
VIJAYA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 040.
12. SMT. G. CHANDRAKALA
W/O. RAMAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/O D.NO.5, 2ND MAIN
3RD CROSS, GOVINDARAJA NAGARA
VIJAYA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 040.
13. SRI G. MOHAN,
S/O LATE M. GOPAL
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/O D.NO.5, 2ND MAIN
3RD CROSS, GOVINDARAJA NAGARA
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:27957
WP No. 19708 of 2025
HC-KAR
VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 040.
14. SMT. B. VIMALA,
W/O B. RAVINDRANATHA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/O FLAT NO 504,
R.V.GAJENDRA NANDINI,
GANDHINAGAR,
HYDRABAD - 80.
15. SRI. R. PRAKASH
S/O. T.M. RANGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/O. NO.105, SY.NO.42/1
SELVAM INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
A.D. HALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 079.
ALSO AT
NO.24, 1ST MAIN ROAD
RANGANATHAPURA,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 079.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI YALLALINGESHWAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-14)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 27.06.2025 PASSED ON
I.A.NO.9/2024 IN O.S.NO. 8803/2013 PENDING ON THE FILE
OF XXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
BENGALURU (CCH 31) VIDE ANNX-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:27957
WP No. 19708 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner-plaintiff is before this Court calling in
question an order passed by the concerned Court allowing an
application filed by the proposed defendants 1 to 14 under
Order I Rule 10 of the CPC.
2. Heard Sri Adarsha K K, learned counsel appearing for
petitioner and Sri Yallalingeshwar, learned counsel appearing
for respondents 1 to 14.
3. The petitioner/plaintiff files a suit for eviction seeking
to evict defendant/respondent No.15 herein. The defendant
disputes the ownership of the plaintiff. In that light, when the
matter was at an advance stage, an application comes to be
filed by the proposed defendants 1 to 14 in I.A.No.9 under
Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, seeking to implead them as
defendants 2 to 15, contending that they are the owners of the
property. The concerned Court, by a detailed order, noticing
NC: 2025:KHC:27957
HC-KAR
the lis between the parties and to avoid another suit being
filed, allows the application. The reason so rendered by the
concerned court reads as follows:
".... .... ....
REASONS
10. On perusal of the pleadings, the plaintiff has
filed the present suit against the defendant seeking to
pass a Judgment and Decree to evict the defendant from
the suit schedule premises and to direct him to hand over
the vacant possession for other consequential reliefs.
Further the plaintiff in his plaint has averred that the
defendant is a tenant under him in respect of the suit
schedule property and was inducted in the same on
01-12-2004 on a monthly rental basis. It is submitted
that the defendant has stopped paying rents from 01-11-
2010 and has not paid rents even after several demands.
Therefore, the plaintiff had issued legal notice on 11-11-
2013 and terminated the tenancy with the defendant.
However, the defendant has not vacated the suit schedule
premises and therefore, has filed the present suit.
11. On the other hand the defendant has filed
written statement and seriously disputes the title and
ownership of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule
property. Further it is submitted that one Sri G Umesh
has filed a suit in OS 25627/2014 against plaintiff and
others before the City Civil Court, CCH-29 (Mayo hall),
Bengaluru. The defendant though admits that he is a
tenant in respect of the suit schedule property, disputes
the title and ownership of the plaintiff in his written
statement.
12. Further, the proposed defendants have also
seriously disputing with the title and ownership of the
plaintiff and also produced copies of the Partition Deed dt
10-10-1958, Sale Deed dt 23-09-1961, Inam order in
Case No.64/1964, order dt 22-06-2017 passed by the
Joint Director of Land records in RP 9/16-17, Order sheets
in OS 638/2021 and plaint in OS 638/2021.
NC: 2025:KHC:27957
HC-KAR
13. On perusal of the pleadings, applications and
materials placed by the parties, it clearly appears that the
plaintiff has filed eviction suit against the defendant and
the defendant is seriously disputing the title and
ownership of the plaintiff. Further, the proposed
defendants are also seriously disputing the title and
ownership of the plaintiff and also produced documents
supporting their claim. This Court is of the view that in an
eviction suit between the land lord and tenant, a person
claiming independent title to the property may not
always be a necessary or proper party. However, if the
persons claim effects the very root of the landlords title,
then their presence may be required. In the present suit
the title and ownership of the plaintiff is in challenge and
has to be determined during trial and the presence of
impleading applicants is necessary for the proper and
effective adjudication. Further, if the application is not
allowed the same may lead to multiplicity of proceedings.
Therefore, under the above findings and observations this
Court is of the view that allowing the application is
necessary in order to ascertain the real controversy
between the parties and to arrive at meaningful decision.
14. Point No. 2 :- On the basis of above findings
and observations in respect of point No.1, this Court
proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
The IA No. 9 filed by the proposed defendants U/o
1 R 10(2) of CPC is hereby allowed and permitted to come
on record as defendant No.2 to 15.
The counsel for the plaintiff is directed to carryout
necessary amendment in the office with in 14 days."
A perusal at the reason so rendered would in no way indicate
that the order of the concerned Court suffers from non-
application of mind or perversity, for this Court to interfere and
NC: 2025:KHC:27957
HC-KAR
interdict the order impugned in allowing the application filed
under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC seeking to implead
defendants 2 to 15.
4. In that light, the petition not warranting any
interference and being devoid of merits, stands rejected.
SD/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
BKP
