Allowed¶57

Smt. Lakshmamma, v. Puttalakshmamma

Karnataka HC24 Sept 2025WP/26172/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; citation NC: 2025:KHC:38444; WP No. 26172 of 2025 (GM-CPC); Justice M. Nagaprasanna; decided 24-09-2025; Article 227 of the Constitution of India; certiorari; Order 1 Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 CPC; impleadment of additional respondents; final decree proceedings; F.D.P. No. 07/2020; Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur, Mysuru District; applicants not parties to Original Suit; proper and necessary parties; IA No. VI dated 05-08-2024; impugned order dated 07-01-2025 quashed; impleadment application allowed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 07.01.2025 in FDP No.07/2020 quashed; IA No. VI (impleadment application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 CPC) allowed, enabling the petitioners to be brought on record in the final decree proceedings. ¶57

Smt. Lakshmamma, Vs Puttalakshmamma — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶57

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petitioners/applicants, who were not parties to the Original Suit out of which F.D.P. No.07/2020 arises, are entitled to be impleaded as additional respondents in the final decree proceedings under Order 1 Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, notwithstanding the trial court's rejection of their impleadment application by order dated 07-01-2025.

¶39

Court's answer

In view of the contesting respondents' concession that the petitioners are proper and necessary parties to the lis, the Court deemed it appropriate to obliterate the trial court's order and to allow the petitioners' application seeking impleadment into the FDP proceedings.

¶53

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 07.01.2025 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur, Mysore in FDP No.07/2020 stands quashed.

¶57

Key takeaways

The application filed by the petitioners before the concerned Court (IA No. VI under Order 1 Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 CPC) stands allowed, permitting their impleadment in FDP No.07/2020.ratio¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Constitution of India, Article 227 — Writ Petition (GM-CPC) against order dated 07-01-2025 of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur, in F.D.P. No.07/2020 rejecting IA No. VI filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 CPC by persons who were not parties to the Original Suit, seeking impleadment as additional respondents in the final decree proceedings — Contesting respondent Nos. 2 to 4 did not dispute that the petitioners/applicants are proper and necessary parties to the lis and concurred with the petitioners' contention — Held: in that light the Court considered it appropriate to obliterate the order and allow the impleadment application; writ petition allowed; impugned order quashed; application allowed. (Single Judge, Oral Order.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:38444 WP No. 26172 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 26172 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, S/O LATE CHANDREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶10

SMT. MAMATHA W/O NAGESH D/O LATE CHANDREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶11

KAVITHA W/O PRASHANTH KUMAR D/O LATE CHANDREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶12

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SRI NAGARAJEGOWDA S/O LATE CHALUVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶14

ALL ARE R/AT ATHIGUPPE VILLAGE, MULLURU POST, GAVADAGERE HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 610

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:38444 WP No. 26172 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

AND:

¶21

PUTTALAKSHMAMMA, D/O LATE BETTEGOWDA @ RAJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT SIRIYURU VILLAGE, GAVADAGERE HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 610.

¶22

SHARADAMMA W/O LATE JAYARAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶23

SANDESH

¶24

S/O LATE JAYARAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

¶25

DIVYA

¶26

D/O LATE JAYARAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS

¶27

RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT ATTHIGUPPE VILLAGE, GAVADAGERE HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 610

¶28

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R3 AND R4)

¶29

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN F.D.P.NO.07/2020 FROM THE HONBLE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT HUNSUR, MYSURU DISTRICT. II) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07/01/2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:38444 WP No. 26172 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

JUDGE AND JMFC, AT HUNSUR, MYSURU DISTRICT IN F.D.P. NO. 07/2020 ON IA NO. VI FILED BY THE PETITIONERS / APPLICANTS, VIDE ANNX-F TO THE ABOVE WP AND ETC.

¶33

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

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

The petitioners are before this Court, seeking the following prayer:

¶37

"i. Call for the entire records in F.D.P.No.07/2020 from the Hon'ble Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at Hunsur, Mysuru District.

¶38

ii. Issue a writ of certiorari by Set-aside the impugned order dated 07-01-2025 passed by the Hon'ble Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at Hunsur, Mysuru District in F.D.P.No.07/2020 on IA No.VI filed by the petitioners/applicants, vide Annexure'F' to the above writ petition,

¶39

iii. Allow, the IA No.VI dated 05-08-2024 filed by the petitioners herein under Order 1 rule 10(2) r/w section 151 of Civil Procedure Code for impleading them as additional respondents vide Annexure-'C' and permitted them to come on records in FDP No.07/2020 as respondents.

¶40

iv. Pass, any such order/s or grant any relief/s fit to be granted in favour of the petitioners, under the facts and circumstances of the case including the cost of

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:38444 WP No. 26172 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

the proceedings, in the interest to justice and equity."

¶45

Heard Sri. Pradeep Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. Shivaswamy, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and have perused the material on record.

¶46

The petitioners are impleading applicant Nos.1 to 4 seeking to implead them in FDP No.7/2020.

¶47

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were not impleaded in the Original Suit, which ought to have been done and therefore, the applicants prefer an application seeking their impleadment into the final decree proceedings, which comes to be rejected on the score that they were not parties in the Original Suit.

¶48

Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 i.e., the contesting respondents would not dispute the position that the petitioners are proper and necessary parties to the lis and therefore, would agree with the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:38444 WP No. 26172 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52