Allowed¶9

H S Jayappa v. K B Prakash

Impleadment – necessary party – Order I Rule 10(2) CPC – Article 227 of the Constitution of India

Karnataka HC24 Nov 2025WP/28102/2019

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (S Vishwajith Shetty J., 24.11.2025), WP 28102/2019 (GM-CPC): impleadment of agreement-for-sale purchaser as necessary party under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC in partition suit; rejection of IA No.12 set aside via Article 227; concurrent specific performance suit O.S.No.445/2018; necessary party vs proper party distinction.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 13.06.2019 passed on IA No.12 in O.S.No.162/2017 set aside; consequentially, the prayer made in IA-12 (impleadment of the petitioner as party defendant) granted; Trial Court directed to expedite the trial of the 2017 suit and dispose of it at the earliest. ¶9

H S Jayappa Vs K B Prakash — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who claims to have entered into an agreement for sale dated 05.02.2010 in respect of Item no.2 of the suit schedule property in O.S.No.162/2017 with parties to the suit, is a necessary or proper party entitled to be impleaded as a defendant under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, and whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting IA No.12.

¶1

Court's answer

In considering an impleadment application, the court considers whether the proposed party is a necessary party (essential for disposal of the suit) or a proper party (whose presence is required for effectively adjudicating the dispute involved in the suit).

¶7

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner claims to have entered into an agreement for sale in respect of Item no.2 of the suit schedule properties with the parties to O.S.No.162/2017, his impleadment application ought to have been entertained by the Trial Court to protect his interest in that item, as he is a necessary party to the suit.

¶8

Key takeaways

The Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Impleadment — necessary party — Order I Rule 10(2) CPC — Article 227 of the Constitution of India — Writ petition by H.S. Jayappa against rejection of IA No.12 seeking his impleadment as defendant in O.S.No.162/2017 (partition suit, II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Davanagere), order dated 13.06.2019. Petitioner claimed the plaintiff had executed an agreement for sale dated 05.02.2010 in respect of Item no.2 of the suit schedule property and had already filed O.S.No.445/2018 for specific performance thereof. Held: a necessary party is one essential for disposal of the suit; a proper party is one whose presence is required for effective adjudication; to protect the petitioner's interest in Item no.2 he was a necessary party and his application ought to have been entertained; the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application. Writ petition allowed; impugned order set aside; IA-12 granted; Trial Court directed to expedite trial.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:48532 WP No. 28102 of 2019

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 28102 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

H.S. JAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS S/O LATE SIDDAPPA R/O HULIPINAKATTE VILLAGE ANAGODU HOBLI DAVANAGERE TALUK & DISTRICT - 577 556.

¶11

&PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI CHIDAMBARA G.S, ADV.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

K.B. PRAKASH

¶15

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

¶16

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O LATE BASAVALINGAPPA R/O KURKI VILLAGE DAVANGERE - 577 514.

¶17

SUBHADRAMMA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS W/O LATE BASAVALINGAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRs RESPONDENTS 3, 5, 6, 4(a) & 4(b).

¶18

MARULASIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O LATE BASAVALINGAPPA.

¶19

RAVINDRAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O LATE BASAVALINGAPPA

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:48532 WP No. 28102 of 2019

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

R-4a SMT. RENUKA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS W/O LATE RAVINDRAKUMAR.

¶24

R-4b YATHISH

¶25

AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS S/O LATE RAVINDRAKUMAR.

¶26

BOTH ARE R/O KURKI VILLAGE AND POST DAVANAGAERE TALUK & DISTRICT PIN CODE - 577 514.

¶27

5. AJJAPPA

¶28

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O LATE BASAVALINGAPPA.

¶29

SURESH

¶30

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O LATE BASAVALINGAPPA.

¶31

RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6 ARE R/O KURKI VILLAGE DAVANGERE TALUK - 577 514.

¶32

&RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI MANJUNATHA P.V, ADV., R-1; R-3, R-5 & R-6, R-4(A & B) TREATED AS LRs OF R-2, V/O DTD: 23.06.2025; R-5, R-6, R-4 (A) R-4(B) & R-3 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶34

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.06.2019, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER VI MACT, DAVANAGAERE IN O.S.NO.162/2017 ON IA NO.12 AND PASS APPROPRIATE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDERS ALLOWING THE SAID APPLICATION AND ETC.

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:48532 WP No. 28102 of 2019

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶40

ORAL ORDER

¶41

This writ petition is filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 13.06.2019 passed on IA.no.12 in O.S.No.162/2017 by the Court of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Davanagere.

¶42

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶43

Suit in O.S.No.162/2017 is filed by respondent no.1 herein before the jurisdictional Civil Court seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The contesting defendants have entered appearance in the suit and filed their written statement. IA-12 was filed on behalf of the petitioner under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC with a prayer to implead him as party defendant to the suit in O.S.No.162/2017. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff. The Trial Court vide the order impugned, has rejected the said application and being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court.

¶44

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:48532 WP No. 28102 of 2019

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Perusal of the material on record would go to show that O.S.No.162/2017 is filed by respondent no.1 herein seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. Defendants are the wife and children of late Basavalingappa,

¶47

and plaintiff is one of the sons of late Basavalingappa. Petitioner herein has filed IA-12 in O.S.No.162/2017 to implead him as party defendant no.6 in the said suit.

¶48

According to the petitioner, the plaintiff in

¶49

O.S.No.162/2017 has executed an agreement for sale on 05.02.2010 in respect of Item no.2 of the suit schedule property in O.S.No.162/2017 after having received valid consideration for the same.

¶50

The material on record would go to show that the petitioner has filed O.S.No.445/2018 before the jurisdictional Civil court seeking the relief of specific performance of the aforesaid agreement and plaintiff in O.S.No.162/2017 is party defendant in the said suit.

¶51

While considering the application filed for impleadment, it is necessary to consider whether the proposed party is a

¶52

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:48532 WP No. 28102 of 2019

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

necessary or proper party to the suit. A necessary party is a

¶55

party who is essential for the purpose of disposal of the suit and a proper party is a party whose presence would be required for the purpose of effectively adjudicating the dispute involved in the suit.

¶56

In the present case, petitioner claims that he has entered into an agreement for sale in respect of Item no.2 of the suit schedule properties with the parties to the suit in O.S.No.162/2017. If that is so, in order to protect the interest of the petitioner in Item no.2 of the suit schedule property, his application ought to have been entertained by the Trial Court since he is a necessary party to the suit. In addition to the same, petitioner has also filed separate suit in O.S.No.445/2018 seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 05.02.2010 alleged to have been executed by the parties in O.S.No.162/2017 in his favour, in respect of one of the items of the suit schedule properties in O.S.No.162/2017. Therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC. Accordingly, the following order:

¶57

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:48532 WP No. 28102 of 2019

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated

¶61

13.06.2019 passed on IA.no.12 in O.S.No.162/2017 by the Court of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Davanagere, is set aside.

¶62

Consequentially, the prayer made in IA-12 is granted.

¶63

It is needless to state that since the suit is of the year 2017, the Trial Court shall expedite the trial in the suit and dispose of the same at the earliest.

¶64

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶65

H S Jayappa v. K B Prakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H S Jayappa v. K B Prakash

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 B S Chandrashekara Adiga Vs H H Sugunendra Theertha Swamier of Udupi Shri Puttige Mutt

Smt Jayarangamma Vs Smt Rathnamma

Sri Thimmegowda B Vs Smt Jayamma

A Mohammed Rasool @ Mujeeb Pasha Vs Smt. Vageeswari S

Sri Jayarma Vs Smt. G S Uma

Sri. Mohammad Rehan Vs State by Sheshadripuram Police Station