Karnataka High Court
Sri Rajeshkumar vs Sri M C Channappa on 31 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:43938
WP No. 9323 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO. 9323 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI RAJESHKUMAR
SON OF SAMPATH RAJ
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT NO. 64, 3RD CROSS
SRIRAMPURAM
BANGALORE 560 021.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. VASUNDARA T. P., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SIDDAMALLAPPA P M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI M C CHANNAPPA
SON OF LATE MUNISHAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
Digitally R/AT MARAPPANAPALYA VILLAGE
signed by DASANAPURA HOBLI,
RUPA V
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
Location:
High Court PIN CODE 562 123.
Of Karnataka
2. SRI M . SUDARSHAN
SON OF LATE MUNISHAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT MARAPPANAPALYA VILLAGE
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
PIN CODE 562 123.
3. SMT. NAGARATHNA
WIFE OF LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA
D/O LATE MUNISHAMAIAH
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:43938
WP No. 9323 of 2021
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT BOLAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE
DASANAPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
PIN CODE 562 123.
4. SMT. M. MANJULA
WIFE OF LATE KRISHNAPPA
D/O LATE MUNISHAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT DODDAPPAIAH LAYOUT
NAGASHETTIHALLI
BANGLAORE 560 094.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S HIMA KIRAN, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. PRAKASH T. HEBBAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 17.06.2020, PASSED IN R.A NO.89/2015 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE AS PER
ANNEXURE-E AND THEREBY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FOR
IMPLEADING UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) OF THE CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs:
(1) Issue writ of certiorari and to set aside the
order dated 17.06.2020, passed in R.A.No.89/2015,
passed by the learned VII Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore
NC: 2025:KHC:43938
HC-KAR
as per Annexure-E and thereby allow the application
for impleading under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code
of Civil Procedure.
(2) Pass suitable order or direction, as this
Hon'ble Court deems it appropriate in the facts and
circumstances of the case by allowing the above writ
petition with exemplary cost in the interest of justice
and equity.
2. Smt.Vasundara T.P., learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit for
specific performance against the respondents which came
to be dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a regular
first appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed in
the suit and during the pendency of the appeal, the
respondents executed a relinquishment deed dated
06.04.2016 in favour of other family members. Hence,
the petitioner filed an application to implead the persons
who acquired a right under the relinquishment deed.
However, the Appellate Court rejected the said application
solely on the ground that the application is filed at the
belated stage and the decree can be passed in the
NC: 2025:KHC:43938
HC-KAR
absence of the proposed respondents. It is submitted that
the proposed respondents acquired the right under the
relinquishment deed dated 06.04.2016 and hence, they
are the necessary and proper parties to adjudicate the
appeal filed by the petitioner.
3. Per contra, Sri.S.Hima Kiran, learned counsel
for the respondents supports the impugned order of the
Appellate Court and submits that the relinquishment deed
is executed after the dismissal of the suit and the
transaction alleged by the petitioner is mainly a money
transaction. It is submitted that any decree passed
pursuant to the appeal filed by the petitioner would bind
the respondents. Hence, the proposed respondents are
neither necessary nor property parties to the suit.
Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the petition.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the
respondents and meticulously perused the material
NC: 2025:KHC:43938
HC-KAR
available on record. I have given my anxious
consideration to the submissions advanced on both the
sides.
5. The petitioner had filed O.S.No.356/2009 for
the relief of specific performance of the agreement dated
10.04.1996. The said suit came to be dismissed. Being
aggrieved, the petitioner filed R.A.No.89/2015 which is
pending on the file of the Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. In the said
appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Order I
Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC')
seeking to implead the respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein as
parties which came to be rejected by the Appellate Court
under the impugned order. A perusal of the application
filed by the petitioner indicates that during the pendency
of the appeal, the respondent No.1 relinquished the right
in respect of the subject matter of the suit in favour of the
respondent Nos.2 to 4 and when the subject matter of the
NC: 2025:KHC:43938
HC-KAR
suit is transferred, a right has been created in favour of
the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in respect of the same. In my
considered view, the respondent Nos.2 to 4 are the
necessary and proper parties to adjudicate the appeal
pending before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court
rejected the application solely on the ground that the
application is filed at the belated stage and the appeal can
be disposed of in the absence of the proposed
respondents. The proposed respondents are the owners of
the property against which specific performance of the
agreement is sought by the petitioner. In view of the
same, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated 17.06.2020 passed in
R.A.No.89/2015 by the learned VII Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, is set
aside.
NC: 2025:KHC:43938
HC-KAR
Consequently, I.A.No.3 filed by the petitioner under
Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the CPC is
allowed.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
