Karnataka High Court
Smt Sujatha vs M/S Indsing Developers Pvt Ltd on 17 September, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:37103
WP No. 14553 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 14553 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SUJATHA
S/O. KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT- MULLUR VILLAGE,
CARMELARAM POST,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK.
BANGALORE - 560 035.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR V.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S INDSING DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,
Digitally signed A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
by NAGAVENI
COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
Location: High
Court of HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 208,
Karnataka
WESTMINISTER, NO. 13, CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 052, REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR, MR. M. KRISHNA.
2. M/S. TREND SQUARE INFRA LLP,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT NO. 1012, 10TH FLOOR, B BLOCK, BRIGADE
SIGNATURE TOWERS, KATAMANALLUR GATE,
BANGALORE-560049, REPRESENTED BY ITS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:37103
WP No. 14553 of 2025
HC-KAR
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY/DIRECTOR
SMT. R. LAKSHMI PRASANNA,
W/O SRI R. RAJASHEKAR REDDY.
3. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S.P
S/O PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
4. SRI. MANJUNATHA. S.P
S/O PAPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT M.G. ROAD,
SARJAPURA, ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562 135.
5. SRI. YELLAPPA,
S/O LATE PULLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS,
R/AT- MULLUR VILLAGE, CARMELARAM POST,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 035
6. SMT. YELLAMMA,
W/O YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
R/AT- MULLUR VILLAGE, CARMELARAM POST,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 035.
VENKATASWAMY,
S/O YELLAPPA,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS L.R.S
7. SMT. MANGALA,
W/O LATE VENKATASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT MULLUR VILLAGE, CARMELARAM POST.
VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:37103
WP No. 14553 of 2025
HC-KAR
BANGALORE - 560 035.
8. SRI BABU SEBASTIAN,
S/O K.T. SEBASTIAN,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT-NO. 1028, NEAR BPL FACTORY,
HOSUR ROAD, BOMMANAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 068.
9. SRI. SURESH BABU,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
R/AT-NO. 1028.
NEAR BPL FACTORY, HOSUR ROAD,
BOMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 068
10. SRL SHIVARAJ V. PATIL.
SO LATE V. B. PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT-KANDAKUR VILLAGE.
KUSTAGI TALUK,
RAICHUR DISTRICT - 585 321.
11. SRI VIVEK TALVAR @ VIVEK PRANANATH TALWAR,
S/O MR. PRANANATH TALWAR,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
R/AT-NO. 17. B-11 PLAZZA RIDGE ROAD,
MALABAR HILLS, MUMBAI,
REP. BY HIS GPA HOLDER,
MR. DILIP MEHRA,
S/O MR BABURAM MEHRA,
R/AT FLAT NO. S-03, GOLDEN ENCLAVE,
AIRPORT ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 017.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:37103
WP No. 14553 of 2025
HC-KAR
12. SRI.P. MOHIT KUMAR.
S/O RAVINDRANATH POOJARI,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
R/AT- NO. 26/1, 2ND CROSS,
WATER TANK ROAD, GOREGUNTE PALYA,
BANGALORE - 560 035.
13. SMT. NAYANA. HJ,
W/O MR. JAYAPRAKASH. H.S.
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
R/AT-NO. 6, 1ST CROSS,
N.S. PALYA, ABBAYYAPPA LAYOUT,
BANGALORE - 560 076.
14. SRI. JOHN JOSEPH.
S/O. JOSEPH,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
15. SMT. SHALI JOY.
W/O JOHN JOSEPH
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
16. SRI. JOSE PANKAL,
S/O JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
17. SRI. SIJI JOSE,
S/O JOSE PANKAL,
RESPONDENT NO.14 TO 17 ARE
R/AT-AMBEDKAR NAGAR, MULLUR COLONY,
NEAR SNEHADAN HOSPITAL, VARTHUR HOBLI,
CARMELARAM POST, BANGALORE - 560 035.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR R, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. S.G. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:37103
WP No. 14553 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE / QUASHING
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.03.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A
PASSED BY THE HONBLE VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, ALLOWING
THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2
/APPLICANTS ON I.A.NO.25 IN O.S.NO. 106/2007,
CONSEQUENTLY REJECT/ DISMISS THE I.A.NO.25 FILED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2/ APPLICANTS BEFORE THE
TRIAL COURT AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is before
this Court seeking the following prayers:
"a) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ or
order setting aside / quashing the impugned
order dated 15.03.2025 vide Annexure - A passed
by the Hon'ble VII Additional Senior Civil Judge
Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, allowing the
application filed by the respondent No.1 and 2/
applicants on I.A.No.25 in O.S.No.106/2007,
consequently reject/ dismiss the I.A.No.25 filed
by the respondent No.1 and 2/ applicants before
the Trial Court;
b) Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the
NC: 2025:KHC:37103
HC-KAR
case, by allowing the above petition, in the
interest of justice and equity."
2. Heard Shri Shivakumar V., learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner; Shri Anil Kumar R. learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.1 and Shri S.G. Hegde, learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. The petitioner is defendant No.3. A suit comes to be
instituted by the plaintiff in O.S.No.106/2007. It transpires that
the respondents herein purchases the property during the
subsistence of the suit and is wanting to implead themselves
into the proceedings. The concerned court allows the
application. The moment the application is allowed, the
respondents files an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the CPC' for short) seeking
rejection of the plaint. The evidence began to be let in on the
rejection of the plaint and at that time, the petitioner
approaches this court in the subject petition calling in question
the order which permits the respondents to come on record i.e,
under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC.
NC: 2025:KHC:37103
HC-KAR
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents
submits that they are a proper and necessary parties.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would however dispute the position contending that the
respondents are neither proper nor necessary parties.
6. The concerned court allows the application by the
following order:
"19. Hence, from relying upon the principles of
the above Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
High Court of Karnataka, it is clear that seeking
impleadment in a pending proceeding before a Court
cannot be claimed as a matter of right, however, that
general rule is subject to the provisions of Order I rule
10 of the Code. The plaintiffs have filed suit for
partition. The proposed defendant has furnished
conveyance deed and sale deed standing over item No.2
property i.e., Sy.No.70/1 dated 18-09-2024 and 25-09-
2024.20. Certainly, there is documents standing an
suit item No.2. The presence of the proposed
defendants No.15 and 16 will not cause any hardship to
the plaintiff or other defendants. If the applicants are
brought on record it helps the court to reach a fair
conclusion and their presence is necessary, hence, they
need to be arrayed as parties to avoid multiplicity.
Moreover, mere adding will not dilute their duty in
establishing their contention. Hence, with these
observations I proceed to pass the following.
ORDER
IA No.25 filed under order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC is
allowed.
For amendment and amended plaint by 15-04-
2025."
NC: 2025:KHC:37103
HC-KAR
The concerned court has allowed the application by
rendering cogent reasons which would neither perversity nor
error apparent.
7. In that light, there is no warrant of interference
with the order passed by the concerned court bringing in the
purchaser of the property. In that light, the petition stands
rejected.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
JY
CT: BHK
