Karnataka High Court
Smt. Indira Gandhi Primary vs Ayodhyanagarada Shivachara Vyasa on 24 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:21878
WP No. 7759 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO. 7759 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. INDIRA GANDHI PRIMARY
EDUCATION SOCIETY
NO.39/2, 2ND FLOOR
A.S.V.N.V. BHAVAN
OPPOSITE S.B.I., K.G. ROAD
GANDHI NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 009.
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PAUL CHANDRAN BAYNES, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. A.K.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. AYODHYANAGARADA SHIVACHARA VYASA
Digitally NAGARATHA VIDYAVARDAKA SANGHA
signed by HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
GEETHA P G ASVNV BHAVAN, 6TH FLOOR
Location:
HIGH COURT NO.39/2, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD
OF BANGALORE-560 009.
KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY.
2. MR. SATEESH S. KUDTARKAR
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
50 YEARS, ADVOCATE
2ND FLOOR, ASVNV BHAVAN
NO.39/2, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD
BANGALORE-560 009.
3. MR. VAGEESH V. HIREMATH
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:21878
WP No. 7759 of 2020
HC-KAR
ADVOCATE,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
2ND FLOOR, ASVNV BHAVAN
NO.39/2, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD
BANGALORE-560 009.
4. MR. K. P. CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
ADVOCATE
2ND FLOOR, ASVNV BHAVAN
NO.39/2, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD
BANGALORE-560 009.
5. MR. S. M. SHIVASHANKAR
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
ADVOCATE
2ND FLOOR, ASVNV BHAVAN
NO.39/2, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD
BANGALORE-560 009.
6. MR. A. RAJENDRA
S/O MUNISWAMY ARUMUGAM
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
M/S. B.M. CARS, NO.68
4TH MAIN, HIG PHASE-I
NOL AMBUR, MOGAPUR WEST
CHENNAI-600 037.
7. MR. PREMUKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
ADVOCATE
NO. 39/2, 2ND FLOOR
ASVNV BHAVAN
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD
BANGALORE-560 009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ABHISHEK N.V., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;
SRI. L.MALLIKARJUNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R7)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:21878
WP No. 7759 of 2020
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE
RECORDS IN O.S.NO.5546/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE
XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE,
BENGALURU (CCH-16) AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
19.10.2019, IN O.S.NO.5546/2017, PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE,
BENGALURU (CCH-16) AS PER ANNEXURE-K AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"a) Call for the entire records in
O.S.No.5546/2017, on the file of the Hon'ble
XVII Additional City Civil and Session Judge,
Bengaluru (CCH.16).
b) Issue a writ in the Nature of Mandamus /
Certiorari, setting aside the order dated 19-
10-2019, in O.S.No.5546/2017, passed by the
Hon'ble XVII Additional City Civil and Session
Judge, Bengaluru (CCH.16) as per Annexure-
K.
c) Issue any other appropriate Order/Orders and
to Grant such other relief as this Hon'ble court
deems fit to grant in the circumstances and
facts of the case in the interest of justice and
equity."
NC: 2025:KHC:21878
HC-KAR
2. Sri. Paul Chandran Baynes, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
defendant No.1 in the suit filed by respondent No.1. In the
said suit, it filed an application to strike out defendant Nos.2 to
5 and 7 from the proceedings as there is no jural relationship
between respondent No.1, who is the plaintiff and the said
defendants. It is submitted that defendant Nos.2 to 5 and 7 are
the sub-tenants of the petitioner, even in their absence, the
suit can be proceeded with and if any decree is passed in view
of specific admission of the petitioner, the said decree binds on
them. Hence, they are neither necessary nor proper parties
and the application is filed to strike them out from the
proceedings required to be allowed. It is further submitted that
the petitioner-respondent No.1 in the plaint at paragraph No.2
has stated that it is a lessee under State Government however
in the amended plaint, he claims himself as the owner and
unless that issue is decided, the suit cannot be proceeded with.
Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the
impugned order.
NC: 2025:KHC:21878
HC-KAR
3. Per contra, Sri. Abhishek N.V., learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.1 supports the impugned order of
the trial Court and submits that defendant Nos.2 to 5 and 7
have no objection to contest the proceedings initiated by
respondent No.1 as they have filed separate written statements
taking their stand. In the written statement filed by respondent
Nos.2 to 5 and 7 they have clearly admitted that they are the
sub-tenants under the petitioner and which is also evident from
the written statement filed by the petitioner. Hence, they are
necessary and proper parties for adjudication of the suit as the
suit is for ejectment and possession. Hence, he seeks to
dismiss the petition.
4. I have heard the arguments on both sides and
perused the materials available on record. I have given my
anxious consideration to the submissions advanced.
5. Respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.5546/2017 seeking
judgment and decree against defendant Nos.1 to 5 to quit,
vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit
schedule property and further prays for arrears and damage
etc. In the said suit, petitioner filed a written statement taking
NC: 2025:KHC:21878
HC-KAR
its stand. The written statement filed by the petitioner indicate
that it has sub-let the premises to defendant Nos.2 to 5 and 7
who are parties in the proceedings. The records indicate that
defendant Nos.2 to 5 and 7 also filed their written statement
and in one of the written statements at paragraph 8 it
emanates that the premises was sub-let in their favour by the
petitioner. When things stood thus, the trial Court taking note
of the fact that the application filed by the petitioner under
Order 1 Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 of CPC to delete/strike the
case against defendant Nos.2 to 5 and 7 is misconceived as
they themselves are contesting the proceedings and have taken
a stand in the pending suit. In my consideration, the trial Court
was fully justified in rejecting the application filed by the
petitioner.
6. It is not in dispute that the decree passed in favour
of defendant No.1 binds the sub-tenants also. However, when
the sub-tenants have no objection to continue the proceedings,
definitely, respondent No.1 who is the petitioner cannot have
any objection for defendant Nos.2 to 5 and 7 being the parties
to the proceedings. I do not find any error in the impugned
NC: 2025:KHC:21878
HC-KAR
order calling for interference in the present petition. Hence, the
same is rejected. Insofar as the contention with regard to the
stand of respondent No.1 in the plaint averments at paragraph
No.2 is concerned, the same cannot be gone into the present
petition as the same is not the subject matter in this petition.
For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is
hereby rejected.
SD/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
PGG
