[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri G Sudhir Reddy vs Sri Maqsood M Ali on 21 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:10854
WP No. 5561 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
WRIT PETITION NO.5561 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI G.SUDHIR REDDY,
SON OF SRI.G.NARAYANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
NO.42, K.T.ROAD, 5TH CROSS,
T.DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 057.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAHUL DEV S DESHAMUDRE., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI.MAQSOOD M. ALI,
S/O LATE MEHMOOD ALI,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
2. SRI.ABDUR REHMAN,
S/O SRI. MAQSOOD M. ALI,
Digitally
signed by AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
KAVYA G
3. MS.TASMIA,
Location:
High Court D/O SRI. MAQSOOD M. ALI,
of AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
Karnataka
4. M/S. MAQSOOD AND MAQDOOM,
BENEFIT TRUST
REP. BY SRI MAQSOOD M. ALI, (TRUSTEE),
R1 TO R4 ARE R/AT:
C/O. ALI ESTATE,
VASUDEVAPURA VILLAGE,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-560 064.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:10854
WP No. 5561 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING (A) TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.12.2025 PASSED BY THE XL
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN
OS NO.5592/2016 ON IA NO.12 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. This petition has been filed seeking the following
reliefs:
(a) Set aside the impugned order dated
18.12.2025, passed by the XL Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru, in O.S.No.5592 of 2016 on
I.A.No.12 (Annexure-A); and
(b) Allow I.A.No.12 (Annexure-G) filed by the
petitioner in O.S.No.5592 of 2016 before the XL
Additional City civil and Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru; or
Pass such other or further Orders as this Hon'ble
Court deems fit in the interests of justice and equity."
2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.5592/2016.
I.A.No.12 was filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10(2)
NC: 2026:KHC:10854
HC-KAR
read with Section 151 CPC to strike out defendant No.4 from
the array of parties. The ground raised in the affidavit filed in
support of the said application is that the defendants along with
their henchmen have over the years made multiple attempts to
interfere with the plaintiff's possession. The defendants have
filed multiple collusive and baseless suits against the plaintiff
and his predecessors in title in respect of the suit property, one
such suit being O.S.No.7603/2014, which was filed by
defendant No.4 seeking declaration that the sale deed executed
in the year 2012 was null and void and not binding on
defendant No.4/trust. It is further stated that defendant No.4
had suppressed the trust deed by which it was incorporated in
the said suit. The suit was dismissed on the ground that it was
barred by limitation. Against the said judgment and decree and
an appeal is pending before the High Court. It is stated that the
plaintiff had recently learnt that defendant No.4/trust is no
longer in subsistence and litigation is being instituted on its
behalf without any lawful authority. The trust deed has expired.
The aforesaid IA was opposed by defendant No.4 stating that
the plaintiff under a void registered sale deed is claiming to be
the owner of the trust property and the co-trustee is not a
NC: 2026:KHC:10854
HC-KAR
vendor to the plaintiff and there is no division of trust property
and the trust is not dissolved by due process of law.
3. The points that fell for consideration of the trial
Court were as follows:
(1) Whether the plaintiff has made out a case to allow the
application and strike out defendant No.4 from array of
parties?
(2) What Order?
4. The trial Court noted that multiple suits in respect
of the suit property has been filed between the plaintiff and
defendant Nos.1 to 4 and many suits are still pending for
consideration before various Courts and a matter is pending
before the High Court of Karnataka. This shows that defendant
No.4 trust is asserting a right over the suit schedule property.
It was noted that defendant No.4 had also represented that the
trust had executed an irrevocable General Power of Attorney in
favour of one Rajeev Kumar and he has a subsisting right over
the scheduled property.
5. The argument of the learned Counsel for the
plaintiff was noted by the trial Court that the plaintiff being the
NC: 2026:KHC:10854
HC-KAR
dominus litis cannot be compelled to proceed against whom he
does not claim any relief. But since defendant No.4 is not
necessary party, the plaintiff cannot be compelled to proceed
against him. Since defendant No.4 trust is not a legal entity, it
cannot be sued. The trial Court noted that the only reason
which makes it necessary to make a person a party to an action
is that he should be bound by the decree and therefore there
must be a question which cannot be effectually and completely
settled unless he is a party to the suit. It was therefore held
that when defendant No.4 claims to have a subsisting right and
when the interest of the trust is involved in the trust property,
for purpose of effective adjudication of the controversy
involved, the presence of defendant No.4 is very much
necessary. Accordingly, I.A.No.12 was dismissed.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to
the written statement filed by the defendants in the aforesaid
O.S.No.5592/2016. Evident it is from perusal of the plaint that
a counter claim with regard to the sale deed of the plaintiff
dated 30.04.2012 has been raised seeking to declare it as
ab-initio, null and void and not binding upon the defendants'
Maqsood and Maqdoom Benefit Trust. It is stated that multiple
NC: 2026:KHC:10854
HC-KAR
such claims are being set up by the defendants for which it is
essential that defendant No.4 be permitted to be deleted from
the array of parties in the suit.
7. In my considered opinion, a counter claim has been
raised on behalf of defendant No.4 in the aforesaid suit. Though
the learned Counsel for the petitioner states that aforesaid
written statement is only by defendant No.1 and not by
defendant No.4, this Court finds from perusal of
Annexure-D, that the counter claim is sought to be raised in
respect of all the defendants.
8. Since multiple suits are stated to be pending
between the parties, and a counter claim has been set up in the
present suit by the defendants with regard to the suit schedule
property, it cannot be said that defendant No.4 is not a
necessary or proper party in the suit that would entitle the
petitioner to seek the relief claimed for in I.A.No.12. Under the
circumstances, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the
impugned order. This petition is therefore dismissed.
NC: 2026:KHC:10854
HC-KAR
9. The Registry of this Court is directed to
communicate this order to the concerned trial Court within
fifteen days from today so that it is kept on the record.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI)
JUDGE
KSR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11
