IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 32154 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

GOVINDAPPA S/O.LATE.A.SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.72, NAGAWARA VILLAGE, BANGALORE- 560 084.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. RANGASWAMAIAH R.L., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI.ABDUL MUNAFF S/O LATE ABDUL KHAYUM, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/AT NO.48, 5TH CROSS, POTTERY TOWN, WILLIAM TOWN EXTENSION, BANGALORE- 560 046

2. SRI. S.AKBAR, S/O S.A.SAMAD, Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, by GAVRIBIDANUR R/AT NO.210, 80 FEET ROAD, SUBRAMANYA HBR LAYOUT, 3RD BLOCK, GUPTA BANGALORE- 560 043.

SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF 3. SMT. JABEEN TAJ, KARNATAKA W/O EJAZ AHMED, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, NO.210/4, SAMAD LAYOUT, 3RD BLOCK, HBR LAYOUT, BANGALORE- 560 043

4. SRI. SHAFIQUR RAHMAN T.F, S/O LATE FAZLUR RAHAMAN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.118/6, HENNUR MAIN ROAD, KACHAKARANAHALLI, ST. THOMAS TOWN POST, BANGALORE 560084

5. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE- 560020 …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.04.2025 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT (CCH-21) WAS PLEASED TO DISMISS IA NO. 4 IN OS NO. 25725/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNX-F BY WAY OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND PLEASE TO ALLOW IA NO. 4 IN OS NO.

25725/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

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 petitioner.

2. This petition is filed by the proposed defendant No.2/petitioner/impleading applicant, who has filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section

151 of CPC to implead himself to the suit proceedings in O.S.No.25725/2018.

3. OS.No.25725/2018 is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs. Petitioner/applicant/proposed defendant No.2 has filed the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead himself on the ground that his father, the Late.A.Srinivas and his uncle Nagaraj, are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property. After due enquiry, petitioner came to know that one Adiyappa and Nagaraju had forged the signature of his father and got executed the General Power of Attorney in favour of one Iqbal who sold the suit schedule property in favour of the plantiff. The same is a concocted and fabricated document, and the petitioner herein has already filed the suit for partition in the Court at Hosakote, which includes the suit schedule property. Therefore, he contends that he would be a proper and necessary party in the suit proceedings as his rights would be effected by the orders passed by the trial Court.

4. It is an admitted fact that the suit is filed for permanent injunction by the plaintiff against the defendant. The question of validity and correctness or otherwise of the claim so made by the petitioner with regard to the GPA executed in favour of one Iqbal who has sold the property to the plaintiff, and being concocted and fabricated cannot be drawn into the suit for permanent injunction as that is not an issue involved in the suit and no such plea is made by either plaintiff or defendant. 5. The point for consideration before this Court is:

1. Whether the application under filed Order

10(2) Rule 1 and 2 filed by the petitioner/applicant is required to be allowed or whether he is required to be made a party.

2. Whether the petitioner/applicant would be a proper and necessary party to be included in a suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.

6. The trial Court has considered the submissions and arguments of the learned counsels and has narrated the averments so made by the petitioner and rejected the application for the reasons stated in paragraph Nos.7 and

8 of its or