IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 28387 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. RANGASWAMY C K, S/O SRI. KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

2. SMT. NAGARATHNA H W/O SRI. RANGASWAMY C.K, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 288, 8^TH MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 040.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI PRADEEP NAIK K.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed 1. SRI NANJUNDAIAH, by GAVRIBIDANUR S/O LATE SRI DODDAHONNAIAH, SUBRAMANYA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF 2. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI KARNATAKA W/O SRI. NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 52, 1^ST MAIN, LAKSHMAMMA LAYOUT, DODDABANASAVADI, BENGALURU-560043.

3. SRI. GANGADHARAIAH, S/O LATE SRI. DODDAHONNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, 4. SMT. HANUMAMMA W/O SRI. GANGADHARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/O KHB COLONY, KUNIGAL TOWN.

KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 130.

5. SMT. KEMPAHONNAMMA, D/O LATE SRI. DODDAHONNAIAH, W/O SRI. MAYANNA N, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT NO. 36, NAGASANDRA, K.G. TEMPLE POST, GUBBI RURAL, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572216.

6. SMT. HONNAMMA, D/O LATE SRI. DODDAHONNAIAH, W/O SRI. B.K. KEMPALAKKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O BEGURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT -572 130.

7. SRI. RAVIKUMAR M.N.

S/O SRI. MAYANNA N, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO. 23, LAKSHMI NILAYA, K. CHENNAPPA ROAD, NEAR R.K. HOSPITAL, KAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, ST. THOMAS TOWN, BENGALURU-560084.

8. SRI. RAMCACHANRAPPA N. M, S/O SRI. MAYANNA N, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO. 36, NAGASANDRA, K.G. TEMPLE POST, GUBBI RURAL, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572216.

9. SRI. GOVINDARAJU B.K.

S/O B.K. KEMPALAKKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O BEGURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT -572 130.

10. SRI. YATHISHA B.K.

S/O SRI. B.K. KEMPALAKKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O BEGURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 130.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PUNITH C, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1 AND R2, NOTICE TO R-3 TO 10 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 05.11.2025)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A TO THIS WRIT PETITION i.e., ORDER DATED 01-09-2025 PASSED ON I.A. NO. VI FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN O.S.

NO. 82/2025 BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. The parties to the proceedings shall be referred to as per the ranking before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking relief of partition and separate possession and to declare the compromise deed dated 07.06.2024 to be null and void as the same is executed by way of fraud and not binding on the plaintiffs to declare the sale deed dated 12.11.2024 executed in favour of defendant Nos.9 and 10 to be bad in law and to pass an order of permanent injunction against defendant Nos.9 and 10. The petitioners herein are defendant Nos.9 and 10 before the trial Court. During the pendency of the suit, defendant Nos.9 and 10 filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 of CPC to strike out the names of plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.2 in the original suit in O.S.No.82/2025.

After contest and hearing the arguments of the parties to the proceedings, the said application came to be rejected. Aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos.9 and 10 are before this Court in this petition.

4. It is a vehement contention of learned counsel for defendant Nos.9 and 10 that the impugned order is illegal and perverse and the same requires to be set aside as it is not sustainable in the eye of law. He further contends that when a suit is filed by the plaintiff, he has to make the parties to the proceedings against whom relief is sought and n