Karnataka High Court
Sri T Puttaswamy vs Smt. Lakshmamma on 31 October, 2025
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:43862
WP No. 12039 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 12039 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI T. PUTTASWAMY
S/O LATE CHIKKATHIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
RTD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
R/AT NO.2, SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA
NILAYA, JALAVAHINI BEHIND
ASHWINI KALYANA MANTAP
MANADVADI ROAD
MYSURU - 570 001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI PREREET JAIN, ADV., FOR
SRI P. MAHESHA, ADV.)
AND:
SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
Digitally SINCE DEAD REP. BY HER LRS (R1-3)
signed by
NANDINI M S
Location: 1. SRI KRISHNAMSWAMY
HIGH COURT
OF S/O LATE LAKSHMAMMA
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT MAJOR
R/AT D.NO.672, 3RD A MAIN
4TH CROSS, 4TH STAGE
1ST PHASE, VIJAYANAGAR
MYSURU - 570 017.
2. SRI ESWARA
S/O LATE LAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
R/AT D.NO.1561/A
6TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN
R.P.C LAYOUT, HAMPI NAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 040.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:43862
WP No. 12039 of 2022
HC-KAR
3. SRI RAJENDRA PRASAD.J
S/O LATE LAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
R/AT D.NO.2, 3RD CROSS
4TH MAIN, VINAYAKA NAGAR
MYSURU - 570 012.
4. SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
D/O LATE CHIKKATHIMMAIAH
W/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
R/AT D.NO.1636/1
8TH CROSS, ASHOKAPURAM
MYSURU - 570 008.
5. SMT. PUTTALAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
D/O LATE CHIKATHIMMAIAH
W/O SIDDAIAH
R/AT D.NO. 111, KERAGALLI
JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYURU - 570 008.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIVEK B.N, ADV., FOR
SRI ABHINAV R, ADV., FOR R-1 & R-5;
SRI DINESH C.R, ADV., FOR R-R-3 & R-4;
R-2 SERVED - UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
CJM, MYSURU IN FDP.NO.121/2011 DTD 27.07.2021 VIDE
ANNEXURE-EGRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE IMPUGNED
PROCEEDINGS IN FDP NO.121/2011 PENDING BEFORE THE COURT
OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU PENDING
DISPOSAL OF ABOVE PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B
GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:43862
WP No. 12039 of 2022
HC-KAR
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 set aside the order dated
27.07.2021 passed in FDP No. 121/2011 by the Court of I Addl.
Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mysuru.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. The respondents herein who are decree holders in
O.S.No.1020/2005, which was filed seeking the relief of
partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property,
have initiated final decree proceedings in FDP.No.121/2011
before the Court of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mysuru. In
the said proceedings, petitioner herein is the respondent. He
had filed IA.no.6 under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC with a prayer
to implead the Commissioner of Mysuru Urban Development
Authority, Mysuru, as party respondent in FDP.No.121/2011.
The said application was opposed by the respondents herein by
filing objections. The Trial Court vide the order impugned, has
rejected the said application with costs. and being aggrieved by
the same, petitioner is before this Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:43862
HC-KAR
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the
grounds urged in the petition submits, that certain portion of
the suit schedule property in O.S.No.1020/2005, in which a
preliminary decree is passed for partition and separate
possession of the suit schedule property, has been acquired
and utilized by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority for
the purpose of formation of a road.. The Court Commissioner
appointed in the FDP proceedings has stated that for the
purpose of conducting survey of the suit schedule property,
presence of the officers of MUDA is required. It is under these
circumstances, the Application - IA no.6 was filed. The Trial
Court was not justified in rejecting the said application.
Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the
respondents, has opposed the prayer made in the petition. He
submits that the proposed respondent is not a necessary or
proper party to the proceedings. For the purpose of assisting
the Court Commissioner to conduct the survey, the
Commissioner of MUDA is not required to be arrayed as a party
respondent to the proceedings. Therefore, the Trial Court was
NC: 2025:KHC:43862
HC-KAR
fully justified in rejecting the application. Accordingly, he prays
to dismiss the petition.
6. O.S.No.1020/2005 was filed by the respondents herein
seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the
suit schedule property, and undisputedly, a preliminary decree
is drawn in the said suit. Thereafter, final decree proceedings in
FDP.No.121/2011 is initiated by the decree holders in
O.S.No.1020/2005 as provided under Order XXI Rule 18 of
CPC. It is trite that final decree proceedings is continuation of
the suit and a suit for partition and separate possession comes
to an end on the date of final decree is drawn. IA no.6 is filed
by the petitioner herein who is the judgment debtor in
O.S.No.1020/2005 with a prayer to implead the Commissioner
of MUDA as party respondent in the final decree proceedings.
7. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner,
certain portion of the suit schedule property has been acquired
for the purpose of MUDA and already road has been formed in
the said property, and therefore, presence of the proposed
defendant is necessary for the purpose of proper adjudication
of the dispute involved in the final decree proceedings. He has
NC: 2025:KHC:43862
HC-KAR
also referred to a report of the surveyor who was appointed as
a Court Commissioner in the final decree. In the said report, it
is stated that assistance of the Officers of MUDA would be
required for the purpose of surveying the suit schedule
property as MUDA is in occupation and possession of a portion
of the suit schedule property. For the purpose of assisting the
surveyor, the proposed defendant is not required to be arrayed
as party respondent in the final decree proceedings. The said
relief can be sought by filing an appropriate application before
the Court, in which event, the Court is bound to consider such
application and pass appropriate orders that may be necessary
for the purpose of effectively surveying the suit schedule
properties. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that
the Trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the application
filed by the petitioner to implead the Commissioner of MUDA as
party respondent in the final decree proceedings. I do not find
any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. Accordingly,
the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
KK
