IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.3598 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI B V SRIDHARA S/O B.L.VEERANNAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT BYALADAKERE VILLAGE BELLUR HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAYANNA GOWDA N R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI LAKSHMAMMA C N W/O SRI.MAHESHA.B.V., Di gitally AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS signed by R/AT BYALADAKERE VILLAGE CHANDANA BELLUR HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK B M MANDYA DISTRICT-571 432 Location:

High Court of

2. SRI.B.L.VEERANNA GOWDA Karnataka S/O SRI. LAKKANAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT BYALADAKERE VILLAGE BELLUR HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 432 …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT NAGAMANGALA ON I.A.NO.1/2025 UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) OF C.P.C, IN O.S.NO.149/2024 DATED 12.08.2025, AS PER ANNEXURE-

F.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

This petition by the impleading applicant in O.S.No.149/2024 is directed against the impugned order at Annexure – F dated 12.08.2025 passed on I.A.No.1 by the Civil Judge & JMFC, Nagamangala, whereby the said application filed by the petitioner- impleading applicant seeking impleadment was rejected by the Trial Court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.1-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit in O.S.No.149/2024 against respondent No.2-defendant for specific performance and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. In the said suit, the petitioner herein claiming to be the son of the defendant – B.L.Veerannagowda having obtained a decree in O.S.No.220/2024 sought for impleadment in the present suit by filing the instant application, which was opposed by the respondent No.1-plaintiff and dismissed by the Trial Court vide impugned order, which reads as under:

“ORDERS ON IA No.I The applicant/proposed party has filed this application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC., seeking permission of the court to come on record as defendant No.2.

2. The application is appended with the affidavit of proposed party. 2 O.S.No.149/2024 In the affidavit, it is stated that, the plaintiff has filed suit for the relief of specific performance of contract in respect to suit schedule property. He know the facts and circumstances of the case. He had filed suit at O.S.No.220/2024 in respect of his family properties. In the said suit, item No.8 is subject matter of the present suit and same was decreed on 12.03.2025. Hence, it is prayed to implead him as defendant No.2. The proposed party is necessary and proper party to the suit. In his absence suit cannot be decided effectively and completely. His presence is necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute involved in the case. It is also contended that, if the application is allowed, no hardship will be caused to the other side or defendant. On the other hand, if the application is rejected untold hardship will be caused to proposed party. Hence, it is prayed to implead the proposed party as defendant No.2.

3. On the other hand, the plaintiff filed objection by contending that the application is not maintainable in the eye of law and liable to be rejected. There is no valid grounds to allow the application. The plaintiff and defendant have entered into agreement of sale and suit is in respect of the same. The proposed party is not necessary party to the present suit. But, now the proposed party with an intention to drag 3 O.S.No.149/2024 on the proceedings, filed this false application. Hence, it is prayed to rejected the application.

4. Heard both side and perused the records.

5. Upon hearing arguments and on perus