Disposed¶43

Sri. Siddarama v. Sri. Gurubasappa

Karnataka HC15 Apr 2026WP/23667/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP 23667/2021 (GM-CPC), Kar HC, 15.04.2026, Vijaykumar A. Patil J; Article 227; Order 1 Rule 10(2) r/w S.151 CPC impleadment rejected upheld; O.S.No.16/2020 I.A.No.5; specific performance agreement 21.06.2014; O.S.No.16/2019 fraud compromise decree; O.S.No.50/2007 earnest money refund; R.A.No.83/2012 dismissed; RSA No.2070/2016 pending; NC: 2026:KHC:20296; writ petition disposed, no interference.

What did the court decide?

The Trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the application for impleadment, as the judgment in O.S.No.16/2020 would not bind the petitioner; hence no interference is called for in this writ petition. ¶42

Sri. Siddarama Vs Sri. Gurubasappa — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:20296 WP No. 23667 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 23667 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. SIDDARAMA, SON OF LATE RAMALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT UKKALAGERE VILLAGE, SOSALE HOBLI, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 120

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. P.M. GOPI FOR

¶12

SRI. SIDDAMALLAPPA P.M., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI. GURUBASAPPA, SON OF LATE SADASHIVAPPA, Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, AASEEFA PARVEEN RESIDING AT VIJAYPURA VILLAGE, TALAKADU HOBLI, T. NARASIPURA Location: High Court of Karnataka TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 122

¶15

SMT. YAMUNARANI M.S., WIFE OF LATE H.V. PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2, BRUNDAVANA APARTMENT, AKASHAVANI CIRCLE, V.V. MOHALLA, MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 002

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:20296 WP No. 23667 of 2021

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

KUM. HARSHITHA DAUGHTER OF LATE H.V. PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2, BRUNDAVANA APARTMENT, AKASHAVANI CIRCLE, V.V. MOHALLA, MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 002

¶19

KUM. AMULYA DAUGHTER OF LATE H.V. PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2, BRUNDAVANA APARTMENT, AKASHAVANI CIRCLE, V.V. MOHALLA, MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 002

¶20

KUM. BHOMIKA DAUGHTER OF LATE H.V. PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2, BRUNDAVANA APARTMENT, AKASHAVANI CIRCLE, V.V. MOHALLA, MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 002

¶21

SRI. BALAKRISHNA SON OF MARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. KEMPAIAHNAHUNDI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 002

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(V/O DT: 5/1/22, NOTICE TO R2-6 ARE DISPENSED WITH)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD.23.8.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.16/2020 ON IA

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:20296 WP No. 23667 of 2021

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

NO.5 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC T.NARASIPURA MYSORE DISTRICT AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND THEREBY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FOR IMPLEADING UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. AND ETC.,

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 23.08.2021 passed in O.S.No.16/2020 on I.A.No.5 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, T.Narasipura, Mysuru District, (for short 'Trial Court').

¶31

Heard Sri.P.M.Gopi for G.Siddamallappa P.M.,

¶32

learned counsel for the petitioner. No representation for the respondents.

¶33

The petitioner has filed an application I.A.No.5 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to implead himself as the defendant in O.S.No.16/2020. It is to be noticed that one Sri.Gurubasappa, respondent No.1 herein has filed the aforesaid suit for a relief

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:20296 WP No. 23667 of 2021

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

of specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 21.06.2014 and also sought a relief of declaration that the compromise decree obtained in O.S.No.16/2019 is by way of fraud and not binding on the plaintiff.

¶37

In the said suit, respondents No.2 to 6 are the defendants and they have filed the detailed written statement denying the assertion made by the plaintiff. The petitioner herein has filed an application to implead himself as a defendant in the said suit mainly on the ground that the father of the petitioner herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.50/2007 against one Smt.Shivamma and Sri.H.Raviprakash and the defendants in O.S.No.16/2020 are the legal heirs of Sri.H.Raviprakash and if any finding is recorded in O.S.No.16/2020, the same would affect the right of the petitioner. It is to be noticed that the suit filed by the father of

¶38

the petitioner in O.S.No.50/2007 was partly decreed by directing the defendants therein to refund the earnest money deposit. Being aggrieved, father of the petitioner has filed an appeal in R.A.No.83/2012, which came to be dismissed and thereafter regular second appeal in RSA No.2070/2016 is filed, which is pending adjudication before this Court. The Trial Court

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:20296 WP No. 23667 of 2021

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

taking note of the fact that the petitioner herein is neither necessary nor property party, proceeded to reject the application. The suit filed by respondent No.1 herein is for specific performance of the agreement dated 21.06.2014 and also seeking declaration that the judgment and decree in O.S.No.16/2019 is not binding on them on the ground of fraud.

¶42

Records indicate that the petitioner herein is neither party to the agreement of sale dated 21.06.2014, nor a party in O.S.No.16/2019. The right of the petitioner herein is independently adjudicated in O.S.No.50/2007 and now pending in RSA No.2070/2016 before this Court. In my considered view, the Trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the said application for impleadment, as the judgment in O.S.No.16/2020 would not bind the petitioner. Hence, no interference is called for in this writ petition.

¶43

With the above observation, writ petition is disposed of.

¶44

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶45

AP CT:VS

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Sri. Siddarama v. Sri. Gurubasappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Siddarama v. Sri. Gurubasappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Four Flavours LLP Vs Mr. Deepak Sindhe

Sri. B.A. Radakrishna Vs Sri B a Sirish

Smt. M Manjula Vs Sri Seenappa

Thaseem Ali Khan Vs the State of Karnataka

Prakash S Rathod Vs State of Karnataka

Parvathamma Vs B.Jagadeesh