Smt. Mahadevamma Vs Sri. N Siddaraju — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Smt. Mahadevamma Vs Sri. N Siddaraju — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 29.08.2024 passed on I.A.No.III in O.S.No.126/2023 by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Yelandur set aside; consequently I.A.No.III filed by the petitioners-impleading applicants allowed and the petitioners-impleading applicants permitted to be impleaded as defendant Nos.3 to 16 in the suit proceedings; no opinion expressed on merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should be allowed by setting aside the trial Court's order dated 29.08.2024 dismissing the petitioners' impleading application (I.A.No.III) in O.S.No.126/2023, so as to permit the petitioners to be impleaded as defendant Nos.3 to 16 in the suit.

Court's answer

In view of the submissions of learned counsel for the plaintiff consenting to the impleading application being allowed, the Court permitted the impleading applicants to implead themselves as defendant Nos.3 to 16 and contest the matter before the trial Court.

Ratio / Principle

Since there was no objection from the plaintiff to the impleading applicants being impleaded as defendant Nos.3 to 16, the petition could not be retained much longer before this Court.

Key takeaways

Without adverting into the order passed by the trial Court on the application, and as the plaintiff had no objection in allowing the impleading application, the Court deemed it appropriate to allow the petition by setting aside the order and permitting the petitioners to be impleaded as defendant Nos.3 to 16 to the suit proceedings.ratio¶70
The Court made clear that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.obiter¶80

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-CPC) under Article 227, Constitution of India — impleading application dismissed by trial Court — plaintiff's suit O.S.No.126/2023 (permanent injunction and consequential reliefs) prosecuted in a representative capacity for the SC Community of Y.K.Mole village under Order I Rule 8A read with Section 151 CPC, after notice by public advertisement in two leading dailies — impleading applicants sought to be added as defendant Nos.3 to 16; Civil Judge and JMFC, Yelandur dismissed I.A.No.III on 29.08.2024 — before the High Court, learned counsel for respondent No.1-plaintiff consented to the impleadment and raised no objection — petition allowed: impugned order set aside, I.A.No.III allowed, petitioners impleaded as defendant Nos.3 to 16 to contest the suit — High Court expressly did not express any opinion on the merits and did not advert to the trial Court's order.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:46834 WP No. 32451 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 32451 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. MAHADEVAMMA W/O MAHADEVASHETTY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

SRI CHIKKA HARUVA SHETTY LATE KEMPAGAMASHETTY AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS.

SRI DODDASHETTY LATE RANGASHETTY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.

SMT PUTTANANJAMMA W/O PUTTARAJU

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SMT NAGAMMA LATE CHIKKAKAMASHETTY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

SMT TAYAMMA LATE PUTTASHETTY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

SMT MANGALAMMA W/O VEERASHETTY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

SRI CHIKKAPUTTASHETTY LATE NANJUNDASHETY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:46834 WP No. 32451 of 2024

HC-KAR

SRI KRISHNASHETTY LATE MADASHETTY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

SRI MAHADEVSWAMY LATE CHIKKARANGASHETTY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

SRI KRISHNASHETTY LATE KAMASHETTY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.

SRI M.SWAMY S/O MUDDASHETTY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

SRI A.VENKATESH LATE ANKISIDDASHETTY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.

SRI VENAKTESH K. LATE Y. R. KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

ALL ARE RESIDING AT: Y.K.MOLE GRAMA YELANDURU KASABHA HOBLI YELANDURU TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT PIN-571313.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI GIRISH M.K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI N.SIDDARAJU S/O. NEELISIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT Y.K.MOLE GRAMA AMABALE POST YELLANDRUR TALUK

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46834 WP No. 32451 of 2024

HC-KAR

CHAMARAJANAGARA-571313.

SRI MAHADEVASHETTY LATE NANJUNDASHETTY AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS.

SRI R.DODDAPUTTA S/O RAMASHETTY AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS.

RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 RESIDING AT Y.K.MOLE GRAMA AMBALE POST YELANDURU TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA PIN - 571313.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.KESHAVA MURTHY, ADVOCATE NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 IS DISPENSED VIDE ORDER DATED 14.11.2025)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.08.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC YELANDUR ON I.A.NO.3 IN O.S.NO.126/2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER ORDER I RULE 8(1)(A) READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE VIDE ANNEXURE-L AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel for petitioners-impleading

applicants and learned counsel for respondent No.1-

plaintiff.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:46834 WP No. 32451 of 2024

HC-KAR

Parties to the petition shall be referred to as per

their status before the trial Court.

The petitioners herein impleading applicants have filed an application in I.A.No.III seeking to implead themselves as defendant Nos.3 to 16 in O.S.No.126/2023 by respondent No.1-plaintiff, which came to be dismissed by the trial Court on 29.08.2024. Aggrieved by which, the petitioners-impleading applicants are before this Court seeking to set aside the said order dated 29.08.2024.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for impleading applicants that the plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.126/2023 for permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs with regard to the suit schedule property. Initially, the suit was filed against the defendants i.e., respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein. Later, the plaintiff has filed an application under Order I Rule 8A read with Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to sue not only on his behalf but also on behalf of the SC Community

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46834 WP No. 32451 of 2024

HC-KAR

of Y.K.Mole village. The said application came to be allowed by the trial Court and permitted the plaintiff to sue not only on his behalf but also for the benefit of the SC Community of Y.K.Mole village.

In view of the relief sought to be prosecuted in a representative capacity, the trial Court ordered the plaintiff to take out notice to all the persons, who are interested in the subject matter by way of a public advertisement in any of the two leading daily newspapers. Upon the same having been taken out, the impleading applicants claimed to be interested in the suit and filed an application to implead themselves as parties to the suit proceedings. Upon hearing the impleading applicants, the trial Court dismissed the application to implead themselves as parties to the suit proceedings.

It is this order that is questioned by the

impleading applicants on several grounds urged by them by contending that as they belong to the said Community

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:46834 WP No. 32451 of 2024

HC-KAR

and the suit having been filed in the representative capacity, they are interested and therefore, they are the proper and necessary parties in the suit. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is illegal, perverse and arbitrary. Admittedly, the suit is filed for the relief in the representative capacity. Despite issuing notice through the public advertisement, the application of the impleading applicants ought to have been allowed by the trial Court.

During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for plaintiff agrees and consents to the impleading application being allowed. He would not have any objection if the impleading applicants are made parties to the suit proceedings.

In view of the submissions made by learned

counsel for plaintiff, the impleading applicants are permitted to implead themselves as defendant Nos.3 to 16 and contest the matter before the trial Court.

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:46834 WP No. 32451 of 2024

HC-KAR

Since there is no objection from the plaintiff for

permitting the impleading applicants to be impleaded as defendant Nos.3 to 16 to the suit proceedings, this petition cannot be retained much longer before this Court.

Under the circumstance, without adverting into the order passed by the trial Court on the application and as the plaintiff does not have any objection in allowing the impleading application, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the petition by setting aside the order and permitting the petitioners to be impleaded as defendant Nos.3 to 16 to the suit proceedings.

Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i. The petition is allowed ;

ii. The impugned order dated 29.08.2024 passed

on I.A.No.III in O.S.No.126/2023 by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Yelandur, is hereby set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.III filed by the

8 -

NC: 2025:KHC:46834 WP No. 32451 of 2024

HC-KAR

petitioners-impleading applicants is allowed. The petitioners-impleading applicants are permitted to be impleaded as defendant Nos.3 to 16 in the suit proceedings;

iii. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

CPN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14