SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 440385

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
M/S IFPL – Appellant
Versus
K R MOHAN KUMAR – Respondent
WP 5853/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

WRIT PETITION NO.5853 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

M/S IFPL,

THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM

HAVING ONE OF ITS BRANCH AT NO. 12

I MAIN, 4TH FLOOR, VIDYARANYAPURA

BENGALURU 560 097 REP. BY ITS PARTNER

RAMESH N

S/O G NARAYANAIAH

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

R/AT 12, I MAIN, 4TH FLOOR

VIDYARANYAPURA

BENGALURU 560 097

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. ABHINAY Y T.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed 1. K R MOHAN KUMAR

by S/O RAJU

GAVRIBIDANUR

KOPPA VILLAGE, HARANAHALLI HOBLI

SUBRAMANYA

GUPTA PERIYAPATNA TALUK

SREENATH

MYSURU DISTRICT 571 107

Location: HIGH

COURT OF

2. JANARDAN BT

KARNATAKA

S/O THIMAPPA BR

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

BYLAKUPPE VILLAGE

BM ROAD, HARANAHALLI HOBLI

PERIYAPATTANA TALUK

MYSURU 571 107

3. VENKATESH ST S/O LATE SB THIPPAIAH MULSOGE VILLAGE, BASAVESHWARA BLOCK, KUSHALNAGAR HOBLI SOMAVARPETE TALUK KODAGU 571 201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.RITISH R.NAIK., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.T.P.

VIVEKANANDAADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3;

NOTICE TO R-1 DISPENSED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED

18.12.2025)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 18.12.2024 PASSED ON IA NO. 5 IN OS NO. 153/2022 BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PERIYAPATNA (ANNX-D)

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents.

2. This petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18.12.2024 passed on I.A. No.5 in O.S. No.153/2022 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Periyapatna.

3. Parties shall be referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

4. Petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit against respondent No.1/defendant No.1 for the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 8.4.2021 with respect to property bearing Sy.No.22/1 measuring 39 guntas in Sy.No.22/1 of Manchadevanahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Periyapatna taluk, Mysore district. The defendant No.1 appeared before the Court, filed the written statement and in the written statement, he has stated that he has sold the suit schedule property to Respondent Nos.2 and 3 by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 21.1.2022. On coming to know of such a sale deed through the written statement filed by defendant No.1, the plaintiff filed an application - I.A. No.5 to implead the subsequent purchasers as defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the suit. The said application came to be heard on service of notice to the proposed defendant Nos.2 and 3, the learned trial Judge dismissed the application for impleadment only on the ground that the plaintiff has not produced any document to show that the proposed defendants purchased the suit schedule property and so also the original defendant No.1 has not produced any such material.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff vehemently contends that the impugned order is unsustainable as it is contrary to the facts and so also law and the judgments of this Court and the Apex Court. It is contended by learned counsel that the petitioner/plaintiff came to know of the alienation made by Respondent Nos.2 and 3/proposed defendant Nos.2 and 3 as it was stated so by Respondent No.1/defendant No.1 in the written statement, pursuant to which the application came to be filed in I.A. No.5 to implead the proposed defendants as parties to the suit proceedings. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff that the learned trial Judge without going into these aspects of the sale deed and despite noting the age of the sale deed as claimed by the plaintiff, rejected the application solely on the ground that plaintiff has not produced copy of the sale deed. The same is not the correct proposition of law especially in the suit for specific performance.

6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for respondents fairly submits that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have no objection f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top