Dismissed¶59

K Somanatha Naik v. the State

Karnataka HC4 Nov 2025WP/36372/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; WP No. 36372 of 2024 (GM-R/C); Justice Suraj Govindaraj; decided 04.11.2025. Keywords: impleading application; Order I Rule 10 CPC; necessary party; proper party; writ of certiorari; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; Nyayadhikarna Karnataka Rajya Dharmika Parishat / Karnataka Rajya Dharmika Parishat, Bengaluru; RDP TRI 8/2023-24; order dated 22.11.2024; Kote Kille Mariamma Temple, Karkala; appointment of Administrator; Commissioner Hindu Religious and Endowment Department; petition dismissed with liberty to furnish documents.

What did the court decide?

An application under Order I Rule 10 CPC can be considered only on the basis of whether the applicant is a proper or necessary party to the proceeding. ¶52

K Somanatha Naik Vs the State — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶59

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is a proper or necessary party to the proceedings before the Karnataka Rajya Dharmika Parishat in RDP TRI 8/2023-24 so as to be impleaded under Order I Rule 10 CPC. +1 more

¶52

Court's answer

An application under Order I Rule 10 CPC can be considered only on the basis of whether the applicant is a proper or necessary party to the proceeding.

¶52

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is not a necessary party: the question of his being a necessary party does not arise, more so when no order would be passed against him.

¶56

Key takeaways

The petitioner is not a proper party either: a person who only wishes to place documents and historical perspectives before the authority can always communicate the same to respondent No.2, to be considered if found necessary on merits.ratio¶57
The aspect of the petitioner not being a proper party was dealt with by the Rajya Dharmika Parishat in its detailed order dated 22.11.2024.ratio¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-R/C) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India — challenge to order dated 22.11.2024 of the Nyayadhikarna Karnataka Rajya Dharmika Parishat, Bengaluru (RDP TRI 8/2023-24) rejecting the petitioner's impleading application under Order I Rule 10 CPC — Held: (i) an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC can be considered only on whether the applicant is a proper or necessary party; (ii) the petitioner, having claimed no relief and against whom no order would be passed, is not a necessary party; (iii) a public-spirited individual who wishes only to place documents and historical material before the Parishat is not a proper party, since such material can always be communicated to respondent No.2 (Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Endowment Department) and considered if found relevant on merits; (iv) the Parishat's detailed order dated 22.11.2024 had dealt with this aspect — Writ petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to furnish relevant documents to respondent No.2. (Kote Kille Mariamma Temple, Karkala matter; Justice Suraj Govindaraj, 04.11.2025.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:44318 WP No. 36372 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 36372 OF 2024 (GM-R/C)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

K. SOMANATHA NAIK S/O JAYAVANTHA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT GANESH NIVAS, PERVAJE ROAD, KARKALA, UDUPI DISTRICT-574 104.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. DILRAJ JUDE ROHIT SEQUEIRA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE

¶15

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUZURAI DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶17

COMMISSIONER,

¶18

HINDU RELIGIOUS AND ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, MINTO ANJANEYA BHAVANA, ALUR VENKATARAO ROAD, CHAMARAJAPETE, BANGALORE-560 018.

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:44318 WP No. 36372 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, RAJATADRI, MANIPAL, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 104.

¶22

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 104.

¶23

TAHSILDAR AND EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, TALUKU ADALITHA SOUDHA, KARKALA TALUK, KARKALA, UDUPI DISTRICT-574 104.

¶24

K.B. GOPLAKRISHNA RAO, S/O ANNAPPA SHERIGHAR, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, R/A KASABA GRAMA,

¶25

KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-574 104.

¶26

BALAKRISHNA RAO, S/O LATE SRINIVAS HAVALDHAR, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT 1^ST MAIN, GOPAPURA, 5TH CROSS, SANTHEKATTE, KALYANAPURA, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 105.

¶27

SURESH HAVALDHAR, S/O LATE HARISHCHANDRA HAVALDHAR, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/A KASABA GRAMA, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-574 104.

¶28

RAGHAVENDRA, S/O LATE K.J. VENKATAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44318 WP No. 36372 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

R/A KASABA GRAMA, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-574 104.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI. B. RAVINDRANATH AGA FOR R1 TO R5, V/O DATED 04.11.2025 NOTICE TO R6 TO R9 DISPENSED WITH)

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. DIRECTION IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER REJECTING THE IMPLEADING APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER I RULE 10 OF THE C.P.C. BY THE PETITIONER BY THE HONORABLE NYAYADHIKARANA KARNATAKA RAJYA DHARMIKA PARISHAD, BANGALORE IN RDP TRI NO.08/2023-2024 DATED 22/11/2024 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶35

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

¶36

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

¶39

Notice to respondent No.6 to 9 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order to be passed.

¶40

Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶41

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44318 WP No. 36372 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

"A. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other order or direction in setting aside the order rejecting the Impleading application filed under Order I Rule 10 of the C.P.C. by the petitioner by the Honorable Nyayadhikarana Karnataka Rajya Dharmika Parishad, Bangalore in RDP TRI No.08/2023-2024 Dated 22/11/2024 produced at Annexure-A.

¶44

B. Allow the application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of the code of civil procedure to implead himself as one of the parties to assist the Honourable Nyayadhikarana Karnataka Rajya Dharmika Parishad, Bangalore in RDP TRI NO.08/2023-2024 in coming to the just decision of the case produced at Annexure-AH.

¶45

C. Appoint Administrator to Manage the affairs of the Kote Kille Mariamma Temple at Karkala".

¶46

The grievance of the petitioner is that the impleading application filed by him in the pending proceeding before the Nyayadhikarna Karnataka Rajya Dharmika Parishat, Bengaluru, in I.A.No. in RDP TRI 8/2023-24 came to be dismissed by way of the impugned order dated 22.11.2024.

¶47

The submission of Sri.Dilraj Jude Rohit Sequeira, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a public-spirited individual and he wishes to bring to notice the history of the temple as

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:44318 WP No. 36372 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

well as certain other facts, which would have been required to be considered by the Rajya Dharmika Parishat before orders were passed.

¶51

On enquiry as to whether the petitioner is a candidate for being appointed as a hereditary Archak or the like, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is not interested in doing so and he has no personal interest in the matter except to bring to the notice of the concerned, certain facts and documents which are of seminal importance for the purpose of consideration of the matter.

¶52

An application under Rule 10 of Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure can be only considered on the basis of whether the applicant is a proper or necessary party to the proceeding.

¶53

Insofar as necessary party is concerned, the petitioner having categorically indicated that there is no relief that the petitioner claims, the question of

¶54

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:44318 WP No. 36372 of 2024

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

the petitioner being necessary would not arise. More so when there is no order which would be passed against the petitioner.

¶57

Insofar as being a proper party is concerned, even in respect thereof, the petitioner only wanted to bring to the notice of the respondent certain documents and certain historical perspectives. It would always be available for the petitioner to place the same and to communicate the same to respondent No.2, which could be considered if so found necessary on merits.

¶58

In that view of the matter, the petitioner is also not a proper party to the proceedings, and this aspect has been dealt with by the Rajya Dharmika Parishat in its detailed order dated 22.11.2024.

¶59

In that view of the matter, writ petition is dismissed. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to furnish such documents as the petitioner deems fit to be of relevance to the respondent No.2, which if

¶60

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:44318 WP No. 36372 of 2024

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

found to be relevant, could be considered by the

¶64

respondents.

¶65

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶66