Allowed¶45

Sri Ramaiah @ C Ramu v. Sri Ashoka C

Karnataka HC17 Dec 2025WP/11590/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: impleading of parties; suo motu impleader; Order I Rule 10 CPC; necessary party; proper party; suit simpliciter for permanent injunction; Article 227 writ against interlocutory order; BDA compensation and incentive sites to land losers; Bengaluru Development Authority; Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru; S VISHWAJITH SHETTY J; WP No. 11590 of 2023 (GM-CPC); O.S.No.25846/2018; XIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru; order dated 18.04.2023 set aside; expedition of trial. Neutral citation NC: 2025:KHC:53941.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 18.04.2023 passed in O.S.No.25846/2018 by the Court of XIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru, set aside; Trial Court requested to expedite the trial and dispose of the suit at the earliest. ¶45

Sri Ramaiah @ C Ramu Vs Sri Ashoka C — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court was justified in suo motu directing the plaintiff to implead his siblings as defendants in O.S.No.25846/2018, a suit seeking only a permanent injunction restraining BDA officials from allotting sites to defendant no. 1.

¶44

Court's answer

For adjudicating the dispute involved in the suit, the presence of the other siblings of the plaintiff was not necessary.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

The substantive rights of the plaintiff, defendant no. 1 and their siblings were not being decided in the suit, which was only a suit simpliciter for permanent injunction restraining defendant no. 1 from claiming incentive sites for himself.

¶41

Key takeaways

The Trial Court was not justified in passing the impugned order directing the plaintiff to implead all his siblings as defendants; the impugned order could not be sustained and was set aside.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WP No. 11590 of 2023 (GM-CPC), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.), decided 17.12.2025 (NC: 2025:KHC:53941): Plaintiff (Ramaiah @ C Ramu, represented by GPA holder R. Manunath) in O.S.No.25846/2018 — a suit for permanent injunction restraining the Commissioner and the Special Land Acquisition Officer, BDA (defendant nos. 2 & 3), from allotting BDA incentive/compensation sites to defendant no. 1 (his eldest brother) without deciding the plaintiff's objections — challenged, under Article 227, the Trial Court's suo motu order dated 18.04.2023 directing him to implead his siblings as defendants. Held: the suit was a suit simpliciter for permanent injunction; the substantive rights of the parties were not being adjudicated; the presence of the other siblings was not necessary for adjudication; the impugned order could not be sustained and was set aside; the Trial Court was requested to expedite the trial. Counsel: Bhadrinath R for petitioner; Murugesh V Charati for R-2 & R-3; R-1 served.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:53941 WP No. 11590 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 11590 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI RAMAIAH @ C RAMU S/O LATE CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.24 MANJUNATHA LAYOUT 1ST CROSS, MANGAMMANA PALYA NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE YELLUKUNTE (HSR LAYOUT 7TH SECTOR BENGALURU 560 068.

¶11

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

REPRESENTED BY ITS GPA HOLDER SRI R. MANUNATH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS S/O RAMU C RAMAIAH RESDIING AT NO.24 MANJUNATHA LAYOUT 1ST CROSS, MANGAMMANA PALYA YELLUKUNTE(HSR LAYOUT 7TH SECTOR) BENGALURU 560 068.

¶13

(BY SRI BHADRINATH R, ADV.)

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRI ASHOKA C

¶17

S/O ALTE CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT C/O RAMAIAH S/O LATE VENKATEPPA (EX-G.P.MEMBER) HALASAHALLI, GUNJUR POST SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU - 560 087.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:53941 WP No. 11590 of 2023

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD BENGALURU 560 020.

¶22

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD BENGALURU 560 020.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI MURUGESH V CHARATI, ADV., FOR R-2 & R-3; R-1 SERVED)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 18.04.2023 BY EXERCISING SUO-MOTU POWER UNDER ORDER I RULE 10 OF THE CPC IN OS NO. 25846/2018 PASSED BY THE XIII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT BENGALURU AS FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Plaintiff is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set aside the order dated 18.04.2023 passed in O.S.No.25846/2018 by the Court of XIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru.

¶29

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:53941 WP No. 11590 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Petitioner herein has filed suit in O.S.No.25846/2018 before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Bengaluru, seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant nos.2 & 3 viz., Commissioner and the Special Land Acquisition Officer of Bengaluru Development Authority (for short, 'BDA') from allotting sites in the name of defendant no.1, without deciding the objections of the plaintiff.

¶33

In the said suit, the Trial Court has suo motu passed the impugned orders directing the plaintiff to implead his siblings as defendants in the suit. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff is before this Court.

¶34

Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits that the suit is filed seeking permanent injunction restraining defendant nos.2 & 3 from allotting sites to defendant no.1 alone without deciding the objections of the plaintiff. The title of the parties is not being adjudicated in the present suit. Therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in passing the impugned order.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:53941 WP No. 11590 of 2023

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents has argued in support of the impugned order.

¶39

Perusal of the material on record would go to show that in

¶40

the plaint in O.S.No.25846/2018, it is averred that the property belonging to the father of the plaintiff and defendant no.1 was acquired by the BDA and towards compensation of the lands acquired, in addition to payment of money as per the scheme of the BDA, land loosers are given incentive sites. Plaintiff apprehends that defendant no.1 who is his eldest brother, is likely to claim the said incentive sites for himself, and it is under these circumstances, plaintiff has approached the Civil Court with a prayer to restrain defendant nos.2 & 3 from allotting sites to defendant no.1 without deciding the objections of the petitioner.

¶41

For the purpose of adjudicating the dispute involved in the present case, the presence of other siblings of the plaintiff is not necessary. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the substantive rights of the plaintiff, defendant no.1 and their siblings is not being decided in the present suit. The present suit is only a suit simplication seeking

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:53941 WP No. 11590 of 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

permanent injunction restraining defendant no.1 from claiming incentive sites for himself. The Trial Court was, therefore, not justified in passing the order impugned directing the plaintiff to implead all his siblings as defendants in the present suit. The plaintiff has not prayed for any relief, other than the relief of permanent injunction as aforesaid in the present suit. Under the circumstances, the order impugned cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following order:

¶45

Writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.04.2023 passed in O.S.No.25846/2018 by the Court of XIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru, is set aside.

¶46

Since the suit is of the year 2018, the Trial Court is requested to expedite the trial in the suit and dispose of the suit at the earliest.

¶47

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶48

Sri Ramaiah @ C Ramu v. Sri Ashoka C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ramaiah @ C Ramu v. Sri Ashoka C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.C.F. Jose Vs Dr. George

Sri S.D Nagendra Vs Sri T K Abraham

Sri.K.H.Vittala Vs Sri.D.R.Vijaya

Shri Subbanna Vs Prabhuswamy

K Umapathi Vs Sri G Krishnan

Smt. Pramila Devi S Vs Smt. Nalini