R Shivamurthy v. Smt. K Radha

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2025WP/12543/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 writ petition (GM-CPC) by plaintiff R. Shivamurthy against impleader order dated 11.12.2017 on IA No.7 in O.S.No.398/2017 (XII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru); application of respondent no.5 N Deepak Raj under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC to be impleaded as defendant No.5 was allowed for want of plaintiff's objections and without cogent reasons; HC-KAR set the order aside and remitted IA No.7 for fresh consideration; no precedents cited; no monetary reliefs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 11.12.2017 passed on IA No.7 in O.S.No.398/2017 set aside; matter remitted to the Trial Court for fresh consideration of IA No.7. ¶¶39

R Shivamurthy Vs Smt. K Radha — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:51123 WP No. 12543 of 2018

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 12543 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

R. SHIVAMURTHY S/O K. RAMESH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT #7, 5TH A CROSS NAGAPPA STREET, RAMAIAH COMPOUND, PALACE GUTTAHALLI BANGALORE - 560 003.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI S. KUMAR, ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

SMT. K RADHA W/O B T RAMA MANOHAR D/O K KANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT #2, TIRUMALA NILAYA 1ST BLOCK, DODDABOMMASANDRA VIDYARANYAPURA POST BANGALORE - 560 097.

¶15

SRI K RAMESH SRI K KANNAPPA S/O LATE K KANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT #7, 2ND FLOOR RAMAIAH COMPOUND NAGAPPA STREET PALACE GUTTAHALLI BANGALORE - 560 003.

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:51123 WP No. 12543 of 2018

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

SMT. K SHANTHI W/O SHIVAJI D/O LATE K KANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT #22, KAMALA NIVAS 1ST CROSS, MUNESHWARA BLOCK PALACE GUTTAHALLI BANGALORE - 560 003.

¶19

SMT. K VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O B T NIRANJANA MURTHY D/O LATE K KANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT #25, 2ND CROSS H M NAYAKA ROAD JAI MARUTHI NAGAR NANDINI LAYOUT BANGALORE - 560 096.

¶20

SRI N DEEPAK RAJ S/O SRI D NANDA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT NO. 46TH CROSS BAPUJI LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 040.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI SOMANATHA H, ADV., FOR R-5; R-2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED; V/O DTD 01.12.2025-PETITION AGAINST R-1, R-3 & R-4 IS DISMISSED)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2017 IN O.S.398/2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEX-D.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:51123 WP No. 12543 of 2018

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

Plaintiff is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to setaside the order dated 11.12.2017 passed on IA No.7 in OS No.398/2017 by the Court of XII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

¶31

Heard the learned Counsel for the parities.

¶32

Suit in O.S.No.398/2017 is filed by the petitioner herein seeking the relief of declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction. In the said suit, contesting defendants have filed their written statement and opposed the suit claim. IA.No.7 was filed on behalf of respondent no.5 herein under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC with a prayer to implead him as party defendant No.5 in the suit.

¶33

The said application was allowed by the order impugned and being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff is before this Court.

¶34

Perusal of the material on record would go to show that IA.No.7 was filed before the Trial Court on 11.09.2017. On the said date, the matter was adjourned to 11.12.2017 to enable

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:51123 WP No. 12543 of 2018

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

the plaintiff to file objections to the said application. However, on 11.12.2017, for the reason that no objection was filed on behalf of the plaintiff to IA.No.7, the Trial Court has allowed the said application vide the order impugned.

¶38

Perusal of the order impugned would go to show that no cogent reasons have been assigned by the Trial Court to implead the applicant in IA.No.7 as party defendant to the suit. Therefore, on this short ground, the order impugned needs to be set aside. Accordingly, the following order:

¶39

Writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.12.2017 passed on IA no.7 in O.S.No.398/2017 by the Court of XII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Trial Court to consider the application - IA.no.7, afresh.

¶40

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶41

DN/KK

R Shivamurthy v. Smt. K Radha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Shivamurthy v. Smt. K Radha

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

Chandrappa @ Chandrashekharappa Vs B Annappa

Mr. Allan Sunder Raj Vs Mrs. Miriam Meera Kumar

Sri N. Jayaram Vs Sri B R Ramaswamy Gowda

Smt. N. K. Premakumari Vs Shri. N. M. Siddu

Sri C Manohar Vs Sri S Meganathan

Rajaiah Vs M B Devaraj