A party who is neither necessary nor proper—meaning no relief is sought against them and they have no direct role in the dispute beyond incidental services—should be deleted from the suit proceedings under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO,

I) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.07.2023 PASSED BY V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD SITTING AT HUBBALLI IN COM OS NO.5138/2022 ON I.A.NO.4 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

II) GRANT ANY ORDER/RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

The petitioners filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 19.07.2025 passed on IA No.IV in Com.OS No.5138/2022 by the Court of the learned V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, Sitting at Hubballi (‘Trial Court’ for short) vide Annexure-E.

2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

2.1. Respondent No.1 has filed a suit for recovery of money in Com.OS No.5138/2022 against the petitioners. The petitioners filed a written statements denying the averments made in the plaint. Respondent No.2 filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC praying to delete the name of respondent No.2 from the array of the parties. The said application was opposed by the petitioners by filing objections. The Trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, allowed the application and directed respondent No.1 to delete the name of respondent No.2 from the array of parties in the suit vide order dated 19.07.2023. The petitioners, aggrieved by the impugned order, filed this writ petition.

3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.1.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the Trial Court committed error in passing the impugned order. He submits that, the Trial Court could have looked the stage of the proceedings and considered the application filed by respondent No.2, and the said application filed only to white wash their hands and mislead the Court as there was no liability saddled upon respondent No.2. He submits that, respondent No.2 plays a very important role in re-surfacing the true facts. He submits that, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that, respondent No.1 has not made any allegation against respondent No.2 and also not sought any relief against respondent No.2 in the plaint. The entire allegation is against the petiitoners. Respondent No.1 is unnecessarily arrayed as defendant No.3. He submits that, the petitioners have not made any counter-claim against respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is neither proper nor necessary party. The Trial Court was justified in passing the impugned order. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

6. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

7. It is undisputed fact that, respondent no.1 filed a suit for recovery of money of ₹1,00,92,484/- with future interest at the rate of 18% p.a.

8. The petitioners have produced the copy of the plaint marked as Annexure-A. From the perusal of the entire contents of the plaint, it clearly discloses that, respondent No.1 has not made any allegation against respondent No.2 and the entire