Smt. Jyothi Vs Ramakrishnappa — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Smt. Jyothi Vs Ramakrishnappa — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both writ petitions allowed. (i) W.P.No.14870/2025: matter remitted to the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote to issue notice on the impleading application (Annexure-E) of defendant Nos.1, 5 to 7 under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 CPC, provide opportunity to file objections to the plaintiffs and co-defendants if so advised, and hear the application and pass suitable orders in accordance with law. (ii) W.P.No.28833/2025: trial Court directed to dispose of expeditiously the deletion application (Annexure-C) of defendant Nos.2 to 4 under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, after giving defendant Nos.1, 5 to 7 opportunity to file objections, within a reasonable time and without awaiting service of notice on the impleading application. No opinion expressed on merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court committed a procedural error in notifying the impleading application (under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 CPC) for objections instead of first issuing notice to the impleading applicants and giving them an opportunity to be heard and to file objections. +1 more

Court's answer

The procedure followed by the trial Court - calling for objections to the impleading application without first hearing the impleading applicants or providing them an opportunity to file objections - is not correct; the applicants must be heard and allowed to file objections, and the application heard once for all only after objections of the plaintiffs, co-defendants and impleading applicants are all on record.

Ratio / Principle

The matter is remitted back to the trial Court for issuance of notice to the impleading applicants on the application (Annexure-E in W.P.No.14870/2025) filed under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 CPC, and thereafter to provide the impleading applicants an opportunity to file their objections.

Key takeaways

Plaintiff No.2 and defendant Nos.2 to 4, having already filed objections to the impleading application, are at liberty to file additional objections if required, and the trial Court is at liberty to hear the application and pass a suitable order on the merits.ratio¶118
In view of the disposal of W.P.No.14870/2025, the connected petition W.P.No.28833/2025 automatically stands disposed of by a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the interlocutory application (deletion application, Annexure-C) filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC expeditiously.ratio¶126

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Pradeep Singh Yerur, J.) [NC: 2025:KHC:47964], 20.11.2025 - Two connected writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arising from O.S.No.1130/2022 (old 1231/13) before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote. Held: where defendant Nos.1, 5 to 7 filed an impleading application under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC, the trial Court committed a procedural error in posting the application for objections without first issuing notice to the impleading applicants; the applicants must be heard and given an opportunity to file objections first, and the application heard once all objections (plaintiffs, co-defendants and impleading applicants) are filed. The matter was accordingly remitted for issuance of such notice, with liberty to plaintiff No.2 and defendant Nos.2 to 4 (who had already objected) to file additional objections. The connected petition seeking expeditious disposal of defendant Nos.2 to 4's deletion application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC was disposed of with a direction to decide it promptly after taking the objections of defendant Nos.1, 5 to 7, and without awaiting service of notice on the impleading application. The Court expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on merits. Both petitions allowed.