IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.8648 OF 2020 GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRINIVAS G. BHATTA SON OF G.SHESHAAGIRI BHAT AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.31/105, 1^ST MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, GURU RAGHAVENDRANAGAR

7^TH MAIN, JP NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 078.

...PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATISH T.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE COMMISSIONER CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BENGALURU BCC, BBMP, BENGALURU-560 002.

2. RAVINDRANATH GURU SON OF LATE MAHESHCHANDER GURU AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.593, 24^TH CROSS, BANASHANKARI 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 070.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AMIT ANAND DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;

SRI B.C. GURU, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1908, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED ON I.A. UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) OF CPC DATED 22.1.2020 XXVII ACCJ PRL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU IN O.S.NO.7550/2017 FILED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT, AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 19.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

CAV ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 22.01.2020 on I.A. No. 1, passed in O.S.No.7550/2017 on the file of the XXVII ACCJ Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bengaluru. (“Trial Court” for short). 2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff before the trail Court and Respondent No.1 is the Defendant No.1 before the trial Court.

The Respondent No. 2 herein is the Impleading Applicant.

3. The Brief facts of the case are as follows:

The Petitioner had purchased under a registered sale deed dtd. 24/03/1999, immovable property bearing No. 591 situated at 24^th Cross Road, BSK 2nd Stage, Bangaluru, Old ward No. 56, New ward No. 165, Ganesh Mandir, BBMP, Bengaluru, measuring East to west 40 feet and North to South 65 feet and the 1^st Respondent had conferred the khatha of the said property upon the petitioner and has also collected the tax due upon the same and the petitioner secured the necessary sanctioned plan from the respondent on 24.08.2000 and constructed a commercial building upon the above mentioned property and on construction petitioner had entered into a lease agreement dated 23.08.2017 with M/s Aditya Birla retail Ltd., letting out the above property for the purpose of running the retail outlet.

When the petitioner’s tenant was carrying out the work, the First Respondent’s officials abruptly appeared near the property and made threats to not demolish the building but also made threats to prevent the petitioner’s tenant from carrying out the alterations to the building which constrained the petitioner from getting a legal notice issued to First Respondent despite the receipt of the legal notice again appeared on 08.11.2017 and made threat of demolition and interference and thus, ultimately, O.S No. 7550/2017 has been against the first Respondent wherein, an interim injunction was granted, later on contest by first Respondent the Trial Court ultimately by its order dated

30.01.2018, confirmed the order of injunction already granted in favour of the petitioner.

As the matter stood thus, Second Respondent filed an application I.A.No.1 to implead himself as Second defendant in O.S.No.7550/2017 and the trial Court by an order dated 22.01.2020. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court.

4. Heard the Counsel for petitioner, respondent no-1 and respondent no-2.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would contend that the trial Court has erred by passing an impugned order without appreciating the fact that the petitioner filed only a suit and any judgment that would be passed in such a suit would only be a judgment in personam and not rem and any party who is not arrayed in the said suit is not in any way bound by any order or judgmen