Karnataka High Court
K Sripada Rao vs Channarayappa on 23 October, 2025
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:41842
WP No. 15376 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 15376 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. K. SRIPADA RAO
S/O LATE KESHAVA MURTHY
AGED 86 YEARS.
2. K. PRANESH RAO
S/O LATE KESHAVMURTHY
AGED 82 YEARS.
3. K.G. RAGHUNATH
S/O LATE GOPALAKRISHNA MURTHY
AGED 53 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
KEMBALIGANAHALLI VILLAGE
NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
Digitally signed PIN - 562 114.
by NANDINI M
S
Location: HIGH
...PETITIONERS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI B. RAMESH, ADV.)
AND:
1. CHANNARAYAPPA
S/O LATE CHIKKADASAPPA
AGED 82 YEARS.
2. MANJUNATH @ DAIRY MANJU
S/O THIMMAIH
AGED 40 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
KEMBALIGANAHALLI VILLAGE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:41842
WP No. 15376 of 2023
HC-KAR
NANDAGUDI HOBLI
HOSKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
PIN - 562 114.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI UMESH B.N, ADV.)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 PF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DTD
19.6.2023 PASSED ON IA FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER
ORDER I RULE 10(2) R/W SEC 151 OF CPC IN OS.NO.104/2022
PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HOSKOTE
WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNX-F BY ALLOWING THE
APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER ORDER I RULE 10
(2) OF CPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 19.06.2023
passed on the application, filed by the petitioners under Order I
Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 of CPC in OS No.104/2022
by the Court of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Respondent No.1 herein had filed OS No.104/2022 before
the jurisdictional Civil Court at Hosakote, against respondent
No.2 herein seeking the relief of permanent injunction
NC: 2025:KHC:41842
HC-KAR
restraining the defendant, his men or anybody claiming under
him from interfering with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule properties. In
the said suit, respondent No.2 herein has filed a detailed
written statement opposing the prayer made in the suit and it
is also stated in the written statement that one Shanboog
Keshava Murthy was the original owner of the schedule
properties and after his death, his children Gopala Krishna
Murhty, Sreepadrao and K. Pranseh Rao, are in peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.
Petitioners herein, who are the sons of aforesaid Keshav Murthy
had filed application under Order I Rule 10 (2) read with
Section 151 of CPC with the prayer to implead them as party
defendants in OS No.104/2022. The said application was
opposed by the plaintiff by filing objections. The Trial Court,
vide the order impugned has rejected the application and being
aggrieved by the same, the impleading applicants are before
this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are the absolute owners in possession of the suit
NC: 2025:KHC:41842
HC-KAR
schedule properties and there is a statement to the said effect
in the written statement of respondent No.2 herein.
Respondent No.1/plaintiff suppressing material facts has
deliberately filed a suit against respondent No.2 and therefore,
presence of the petitioners in the suit is necessary for the
purpose of proper adjudication of the dispute involved in the
suit. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Acqua
Borewell Private Limited vs. Swayam Prabha and Others
- (2022) 15 SCC 511.
5. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that
plaintiff in the present suit asserts right, title and possession
over the suit schedule properties and alleging that
defendant/respondent No.2 herein is interfering with his
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
properties, the present suit in OS No.104/2022 has been filed
seeking the relief of permanent injunction as against the
defendant in the suit. At the stage of recording defendant's
evidence, the present application was filed by impleading
applicants with a prayer to implead them as party defendants
NC: 2025:KHC:41842
HC-KAR
in the suit. Suit is filed for the relief of bare injunction and
therefore, it is for the plaintiff to prove his possession over the
suit schedule properties or interference by the defendant
irrespective of the title. It is needless to state that any decree
passed in a suit for permanent injunction binds only the parties
to the suit and not any other third party.
6. The petitioners claim that the suit schedule properties
originally belonged to their father and they are in possession
and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. If that is so, it is
for the petitioners to initiate appropriate proceedings before the
competent Court seeking necessary relief and they cannot be
permitted to get impleaded in a suit filed for bare injunction.
The judgment in the case of Acqua Borewell Private Limited
(supra) has been rendered in a case where the plaintiff had
filed an application to implead additional defendant as against
whom, he had made an allegation of interference and it is
under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had
held that impleadment of the proposed respondent was
necessary. The same is not the fact situation in the present
case and there is no allegation of interference against the
NC: 2025:KHC:41842
HC-KAR
petitioners. The said judgment therefore, cannot be made
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Under the circumstances, I do not find any good ground to
interfere with the order impugned passed by the Trial Court.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
DN
