High Court rejected a writ petition challenging the trial court's order dismissing an application to implead a petitioner as a proposed defendant No. 2 in an ejectment suit. The Court held that under Section 25 of the Partnership Act, existing representation by the firm suffices.
Petition for rejection of impleading application is rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2025:KHC:36315 WP No. 16255 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 16255 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI G.N.PRAKASH S/O LATE G.N. GIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.442 RANKA PARK APARTMENTS
LALBAGH MAIN ROAD NEAR RICHMOND CIRCLE BENGALURU – 560 027.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHRIDHARA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka
NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER
NC: 2025:KHC:36315 WP No. 16255 of 2025
HC-KAR
SMT. SANDHYA RAVINDRANATH
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.16, 1ST CROSS, MISSION ROAD CROSS, SREENIVASA COLONY, BENGALURU – 560 027.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G.SANJAY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF O.S. NO.874/2022 FROM THE COURT OF THE XXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY (CCH-31); II. QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.03.2025 REJECTING I.A. NO.XI FILED UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC AS ANNEXURE-A; III. ALLOW THE IMPLEADING APPLICATION NO.11 AND DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT TO IMPLEAD THE PETITIONER AS DEFENDANT NO.2 AS ANNEXURE-D.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
NC: 2025:KHC:36315 WP No. 16255 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is the proposed defendant No.2 in OS No.874 of 2022 filed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein seeking ejectment of the 4th respondent/defendant therein.
said application becomes final. Now springs the subject application at the hands of the present petitioner. The
HC-KAR
petitioner claiming that he is now in-charge of the affairs of the partnership firm has filed an application in the subject suit seeking to implead himself as proposed defendant No.2. The concerned Court, in terms of its order dated 26-03-2025 rejects the said application, rejection of which has driven the proposed defendant to this Court in the subject petition.
NC: 2025:KHC:36315 WP No. 16255 of 2025
HC-KAR
He is neither necessary nor proper party, as one of the partner is already a defendant in the said suit. He would seek to place reliance upon Section 25 of the Partnership Act.
have objected. After considering the objections and the averments in the plaint, the concerned Court by the following order rejects the application:
“REASONS
NC: 2025:KHC:36315 WP No. 16255 of 2025
HC-KAR
record as defendant No.2. In the accompanying affidavit, the proposed defendant submits that plaintiff has instituted the present suit against the defendant alone, seeking the relief of ejectment and other consequential reliefs. Further, it is submitted that, defendant is not individual and is registered partnership firm consisting of 10 partners. It is submitted that plaintiff has filed the present suit without making all the 10 partners as parties in the suit and also submits that defendant No.1 represented by G.N.Chiranjeevi is not authorized or empowered to deal alone on behalf of the defendant partnership firm. It is submitted that defendant has not informed the filing of the present suit to other partners and came to know about the same recently from reliable sources and immediately obtained the necessary documents. It is submitted that as per the partnership deed, no individual partner has no independent right in respect of defendant firm, however, the plaintiff had entered into rental agreement with the defendant alone. Therefore, it is submitted that the proposed defendant No.2 is necessary and proper party to the proceedings and therefore, prays permission to come on record.
NC: 2025:KHC:36315 WP No. 16255 of 2025
HC-KAR
application I.A.No.I under Section 151 of CPC seeking direction to defendant to pay the arrears of rent of Rs.9,90,000/-. The said application was allowed by this Court vide its order dated 22.04.2024. It is observed that defendant has not deposited the said amount before this Court till date. Further, it is pertinent to note that defendant had previously filed an application IA No.IX under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead the proposed defendant Sri.G.N.Ganesh and the said application was dismissed by this Court by holding that he is not necessary party for the proper adjudication of the present suit and also by holding that there is no necessity to implead the other partners as the defendant has represented the suit on behalf of the defendant firm. In the instant application, the proposed defendant has submitted that no individual, partner has any right to act on behalf of the partnership firm. Further, it is submitted that defendant represented by G N Chiranjeevi though not have any independent right, had entered into rental agreement with the plaintiff. Therefore, it is submitted that, he is proper and necessary party to the proceedings and prays to allow the application.
Section 25. Liability of a partner for acts of the firm .- Every partner is liable, jointly with all the other partners and also severally, for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner.
The provision of law clearly contemplates that every partner is jointly liable for the acts of the firm, which means a suit can be brought against any one of the partners without requiring all the partners to be joined in the suit. That, this Court is of the view that defendant partnership firm is substantially represented in the present suit by its representative Sri.G.N.Chiranjeevi and therefore, the requirement of the proposed defendant No.2 is not necessary for the proper adjudication of the case. Further, this is not a suit where collective rights
NC: 2025:KHC:36315 WP No. 16255 of 2025
HC-KAR
and liabilities of the partners are in issue, such as suit for accounts in respect of the partnership firm, therefore impleading other partners is of no use for the proper adjudication of the present suit and if the application is allowed the same may lead to bring the new case and may frustrate the proceedings in the present suit. The defendant has submitted that there is already one more suit is pending in respect of the dispute between partners of the defendant firm and therefore the defendant or any other partner of the defendant firm can pursue their remedy in the said suit itself. Therefore, on the basis of above findings and observations this Court decides to reject the application. Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered in the Negative.
ORDER
The IA No.XI under Order I Rule 10(2) R/w Section 151 of CPC filed by the proposed defendant No.2 is hereby rejected.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II directly on Computer, computerized by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court this the 26th day of March, 2025.).
Sd/-26/03/25 (MADHU N.R) XXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.”
The reason rendered by the concerned Court is found to be cogent for the fact that the other partner who had been representing the suit was found guilty of not complying with the
NC: 2025:KHC:36315 WP No. 16255 of 2025
HC-KAR
interim order of deposit of rent by several orders. Therefore,
the defence of the said defendant had been struck off.
application filed under order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC.
Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE
BKP/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's rejection of the impleading application filed by a proposed defendant under Order I Rule 10 CPC.
Whether impleading other partners of a partnership firm is necessary for the proper adjudication of a suit for ejectment against the firm when one partner has already been represented.
Sri G.N.Prakash
Smt. Sandhya Ravindranath
M.Nagaprasanna
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
