Allowed¶86

Sri Subbappa v. Srikanth Reddy

Civil Procedure – Impleading of parties (Order I Rule 10(2) CPC)

Karnataka HC19 Nov 2025WP/33571/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC, WP No. 33571 of 2025 (GM-CPC), Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur, decided 19.11.2025 — impleading applicants not proper/necessary parties in suit for permanent injunction where no relief sought against them; trial Court's Order I Rule 10(2) CPC impleading order (plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 added) set aside under Article 227; separate-suit liberty reserved to respondent Nos.4 and 5.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 23.09.2025 passed on I.A.No.VI in O.S.No.26652/2023 by LXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, set aside; liberty reserved to respondent Nos.4 and 5 to initiate proceedings known to law in accordance with law. ¶86

Sri Subbappa Vs Srikanth Reddy — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶86

Issue for consideration

Whether the impleading applicants (respondent Nos.4 and 5) are proper and necessary parties to be impleaded in the suit filed by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction against the defendants? +1 more

¶70

Court's answer

The impleading applicants (respondent Nos.4 and 5) are not proper and necessary parties to be impleaded in the suit filed by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction against the defendants; consequently, the impleading application deserves to be rejected.

¶72

Ratio / Principle

In a suit for permanent injunction (or any other suit), what is required to be seen is whether the impleading applicants are proper and necessary parties, i.e., parties against whom a decree cannot be passed by the trial Court or without whose presence a decree would be ineffective.

¶78

Key takeaways

Since no relief is sought against respondent Nos.4 and 5, if they have any grievance or claim any right, title or interest in the suit property, they are at liberty to file a separate suit urging the contentions made in the impleading application; impleading them as additional proper or necessary parties in the plaintiffs' suit for permanent injunction cannot be permitted.ratio¶83
Interference by this Court is called for: the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.09.2025 passed on I.A.No.VI in O.S.No.26652/2023 by the LXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside.ratio¶87

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Procedure — Impleading of parties (Order I Rule 10(2) CPC) — Plaintiffs' suit for permanent injunction against defendants contained no averments and sought no relief against the impleading applicants (respondent Nos.4 and 5), who claimed ancestral succession, right, title, interest and possession over the suit schedule property — Trial Court (LXXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru) allowed I.A.No.VI permitting them to come on record as plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 — Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India — Held: in a suit for permanent injunction, the test is whether the impleading applicants are proper and necessary parties, i.e., against whom a decree cannot be passed or without whose presence a decree would be ineffective; persons asserting an independent claim of right, title or interest must file a separate suit and cannot be impleaded as additional parties where no relief is sought against them — Impugned order dated 23.09.2025 set aside; liberty reserved to respondent Nos.4 and 5 to initiate proceedings known to law. (Paras 11–12)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:48092 WP No. 33571 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 33571 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI SUBBAPPA

¶9

S/O. MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RESIDING AT: C.K.NAGARA HOSA ROAD, ELECTRONIC CITY BANGALORE - 560 100.

¶10

SRI KISHOR

¶11

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS SON OF LATE YALLAPPA RESIDING AT NO.31 7^TH CROSS, NETAJI BADAVANA HARIJANA COLONY NEAR SHREE VARI CLINIC OPP. ROAD, MUNNEKOLALU MARATHAHALLI POST BANGALORE - 560 037.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(BY SRI ALLAH BAKASH M., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

SRIKANTH REDDY

¶18

S/O. ANAND REDDY AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.

¶19

KISHAN REDDY S/O. NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.

¶20

ANASUYAMMA W/O. ANAND REDDY

¶21

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

¶22

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC:48092 WP No. 33571 of 2025

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT, NO.62/2 GANDHINAGAR ROAD MUNNEKOLALU MARATHAHALLI COLONY BANGALORE - 560 037.

¶26

SMT.PUTTAMMA D/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA W/O. SRI RAMU @ C. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.

¶27

SMT. JAYAMMA D/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA W/O. SRI RAMU @ C. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

¶28

THE RESPONDENT NO.4-5 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDERS

¶29

SRI MUNIRAJU R. S/O. SRI C.RAMU @ C. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.

¶30

SRI MANJUNATHA R. S/O. SRI C. RAMU @ C.RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

¶31

BOTH GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDERS ARE RESIDING AT NO.24 1^ST CROSS, MANJUNATHA LAYOUT NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE MANGAMMANA PALYA HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR-7 BANGALORE - 560 068.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI BHADRINATH R., ADVOCATE FOR C/R4 AND R5; NOTICE TO R1 TO R3 DISPENSED VIDE ORDER DATED 19.11.2025)

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:48092 WP No. 33571 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER IN O.S.NO.26652/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU (CCH-75), I.A.6 FILED BY THE IMPLEADING APPLICANTS/RESPONDENT NO.4-5 UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) OF CPC ALLOWED BY ITS IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.09.2025, PERMITTING THE IMPLEADING APPLICANTS TO COME ON RECORD AS PLAINTIFF NO.3 AND 4 VIZ ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶37

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

¶38

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶39

ORAL ORDER

¶40

Heard Sri Allah Bakash M., learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Bhadrinath R., learned counsel for

¶41

respondent Nos.4 and 5-impleading applicants.

¶42

This petition is filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs challenging the impugned order dated 23.09.2025 passed on I.A.No.VI filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5-impleading applicants in O.S.No.26652/2023 by LXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

¶43

Parties to the petition shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:48092 WP No. 33571 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

The petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit against the respondents-defendants seeking permanent injunction and other consequential benefits. But, there are absolutely no averments made whatsoever against the impleading applicants, i.e., respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein.

¶48

During the pendency of the suit, an impleading application came to be filed by the applicants to implead themselves in the original suit proceedings initiated by the plaintiffs to come on record, as their property rights would be affected and they are in possession of the property. The trial Court has allowed the said application and permitted to implead the applicants as plaintiff Nos.3 and 4, which is the subject matter before this Court.

¶49

It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for petitioners-plaintiffs that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is illegal, perverse and arbitrary. The same cannot be sustained and is required to be rejected. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent

¶50

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:48092 WP No. 33571 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

injunction against the defendants. However, no relief whatsoever is sought against the impleading applicants.

¶53

The impleading applicants have filed an application by making several contentions with regard to their possession

¶54

of the property succeeding from their ancestors, which are irrelevant for the purpose of consideration of the suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiffs.

¶55

Learned counsel for petitioners further contends that the impleading applicants, who are strangers and against whom no relief is sought, are not required to be impleaded; Moreover, the plaintiffs do not have any semblance of right along with the impleading applicants. Therefore, they are not required to be brought on record, as they are not proper and necessary parties and the same has been totally ignored by the trial Court while passing the impugned order. Hence, he seeks to set aside the order passed by the trial Court.

¶56

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:48092 WP No. 33571 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

Per contra , learned counsel for respondent Nos.4

¶59

and 5-impleading applicants sustains the impugned order by contending that they have certain rights over the suit schedule property, as it is their ancestral property and they are the children of Late Muniyappa, grandchildren of Venkatappa @ Kuri Venkatappa and great grandchildren of Balagai Muniga @ Muniga. Therefore, they are the successors to succeed their estate and also the schedule property; they have right, title, interest and also the legitimate share in the schedule property. By suppressing the said true and material facts, the plaintiffs created, forged and fabricated the documents in their names in respect of the schedule property. On the basis of the above said documents, the suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants to obtain a favourable order behind the back of respondent Nos.4 and 5-impleading applicants.

¶60

Therefore, the impleading applicants would be proper and necessary parties in the suit proceedings initiated by the

¶61

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:48092 WP No. 33571 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

plaintiffs and also no harm or hardship or injustice would

¶65

be caused, if they are impleaded in the suit proceedings.

¶66

Heard learned counsel for petitioners-plaintiffs and

¶67

learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5-impleading applicants.

¶68

The short points that would arise for

¶69

consideration are:

¶70

"a. Whether the impleading applicants are proper and necessary parties to be impleaded in the suit filed by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction against the defendants?

¶71

b. Whether the interference is called for by this Court?"

¶72

Answering these two points, the impleading applicants would not be proper and necessary parties to be impleaded in the suit filed by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction against the defendants. Therefore, the

¶73

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC:48092 WP No. 33571 of 2025

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

application filed by the impleading applicants deserves to

¶77

be rejected for the following reasons:-

¶78

a) Admittedly, the suit is filed by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction against the defendants and no relief whatsoever is sought against the impleading applicants. There may be several contentions and reasons for the impleading applicants to contend that they are the owners or successors to succeed the estate of their father and grandfather. But, what is required to be seen in a suit for permanent injunction or any other suit is as to whether the impleading applicants are proper and necessary parties to be impleaded or against whom a decree cannot be passed by the trial Court or without whose presence a decree would be ineffective.

¶79

b) In the present case, admittedly, the plaintiffs have filed a suit against defendants and no relief is sought against the impleading applicants. If at

¶80

¶81

NC: 2025:KHC:48092 WP No. 33571 of 2025

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

all, respondent Nos.4 and 5 have any grievance or claim any right, title or interest in the suit property by whatsoever means and method, they are at liberty to file a separate suit by urging all such contentions that are so made in the impleading application. But, impleading themselves in the suit as additional parties, at any stretch of imagination, as proper or necessary party in the suit filed by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction against defendants cannot be permitted. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial Court deserves to be set aside.

¶84

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶85

ORDER

¶86

i. This petition is allowed ;

¶87

ii. The impugned order dated 23.09.2025 passed on I.A.No.VI in O.S.No.26652/2023

¶88

by LXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions

¶89

10 -

¶90

NC: 2025:KHC:48092 WP No. 33571 of 2025

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

Judge, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. However, liberty is reserved to respondent Nos.4 and 5 to initiate proceedings if they are so entitled and advised in the manner

¶93

known to law in accordance with law.

¶94

Ordered accordingly.

¶95

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶96

CPN

¶97

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Sri Subbappa v. Srikanth Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Subbappa v. Srikanth Reddy

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 H K Shivanna Vs Smt. Puttananjamma

Smt.Susheelamma Vs Sri.C. Nagaraju

Smt.Padmaja S Hegde Vs Smt.Prathima S.Shetty

Smt R Sujatha Vs Mallesh

M/S Smartworks Coworking Spaces Pvt. Ltd. Vs Square Yards Consulting Private Limited

Mrs Vandana Gopal Shinde Vs M/S Omkar Investments and Finance