Ibc Knowledge Park Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri.Ziaulla Sheriff

IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT DIAMOND DISTRICT PENTHOUSE B (9) CORPORATE TOWER B, 150 OLD AIRPORT ROAD, H A L II STAGE, BANGALORE NORTH, BENGALURU 560008. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MR. KHALID MOHSIN

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SHYAM SUNDAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. VANDANA P.L., ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI. ZIAULLA SHERIFF

¶15

S/O LATE TARACHAND GOKLANEY, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, R/AT A1-BARKA GOLDEN ENCLAVE OLD AIRPORT ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 017.

¶16

MR. HARILAL T GOKLANEY S/O LATE TARACHAND GOKLANEY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT T-4, FLAT NO.4223,

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:37 WP No. 32782 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

PRESTIGE MISTY WATER, KEMPAPURA HEBBAL,

¶20

BENGALURU - 560 024.

¶21

MRS. KIRAN AMARLAL W/O MR. ASSARDAS AMARLAL AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT UNIT NO.22B, KINGFISHER TOWERS, NO.44, KASTURBA CROSS RD, SAMPANGIRAMA NAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶22

M/S TULIP ENTERPRISES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT NO.100/1, CITY CENTRE, J C ROAD, BENGALURU 56000 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS, MR. AVNASH AMARLAL AND MRS. EKTA KUKREJA

¶23

MR. AVNASH AMARLAL AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O MR. ASSARDAS AMARLAL R/AT UNIT NO.21B, KINGFISHER TOWERS, NO.44, KASTURBA CROSS ROAD, SAMPANGIRAMA NAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶24

MRS. EKTA A KUKREJA AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS, WIFE OF MR. AVNASH MARLAL R/AT UNIT NO.21B, KINGFISHER TOWERS, NO.44, KASTURBA CROSS ROAD, SAMPANGIRAMA NAGARA,

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:37 WP No. 32782 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶29

MRS. ARCHANA CHABRIA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, W/O MR. SANJAY CHHABRIA, R/AT NO.17, LAKSHMI ROAD, 6^TH CROSS, DIVYA SHREE CHAMBERS, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶30

MRS. SONIA ROOP GOKLANEY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, W/O MR. ROOP RAJ KUMAR GOKLANEY, R/AT NO.08, 1ST CROSS, PALACE CROSS ROAD, CHAKRAVATHI LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI. G.L. VISHWANATH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SOURABH R. KURUBARAHALLI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-5 NOTICE TO R-1 TO R-4, R-6 TO R-8 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 05.01.2026)

¶33

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 04.09.2025 PASSED IN O.S.NO. 747/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV ADDITIONAL SESSIONS AND CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU RURAL, THEREBY DISMISSING I.A. FILED BY THE PETITIONER/IMPLEADING APPLICANT, ETC.

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:37 WP No. 32782 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶39

ORAL ORDER

¶40

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶41

"i) Issue a writ or order setting aside the order dated 04.09.2025 passed in O.S.No.747/2025 passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions and Civil judge at Bengaluru Rural, thereby dismissing LA. filed by the Petitioner/Impleading Applicant, consequently, allow the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rules 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure and implead the petitioner as defendant No.8 vide Annexure-А and to prosecute the matter and

¶42

ii) Declare that the compromise petition dated 02.09.2025 passed vide in O.S. No. 747/2025 vide Annexure. K is illegal, void, and an not binding on the petitioner, as it was obtained in violation of natural justice and during the pendency of the petitioner's impleading application and:

¶43

iii) Direct restoration of the suit in O.S. No.747/2025 on the file of IV Additional Sessions and Civil judge at Bengaluru Rural, with a further direction to implead the petitioner as defendant No.8 and proceed with the trial in accordance with law and

¶44

5 -

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:37 WP No. 32782 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

iv) grant such other relief or relieves as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶48

Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the

¶49

petitioner/impleading applicant, learned Senior Counsel for caveator/respondent No.4 and perused the material on record. For the order proposed, notice to remaining respondents is dispensed with.

¶50

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the first respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit in O.S.No.747/2025 against the respondent Nos.2 to 8/defendant Nos.1 to 7, for declaration and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable properties. During the pendency of the said suit, the plaintiff and defendants filed a compromise petition which was sought to be resisted by the impleading applicant who filed an application seeking impleadment. The impleadment application and the compromise petition were taken up together by the Trial Court, which proceeded to pass the impugned order, rejecting the impleadment application and accordingly accepting the compromise entered into between the plaintiff and defendants and

¶51

6 -

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:37 WP No. 32782 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

disposing of the suit in terms of the compromise entered into between the plaintiff and defendants in the suit. Aggrieved by the impugned order rejecting the impleadment application and accepting the compromise and disposing of the suit, the petitioner/ impleading applicant is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶55

A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the Trial Court has taken note of the fact that after institution of the instant suit in O.S.No.747/2025, the petitioner/impleading applicant had instituted one more suit in O.S.No.2545/2025 on 15.07.2025, pursuant to which the petitioner/impleading applicant had filed the impleadment application on 02.09.2025 and as such, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that having already instituted a separate suit in O.S.No.2545/2025 against all the parties to the present suit in O.S.747/2025, the petitioner/impleading applicant was neither a proper nor a necessary party to the present suit and that it was open for the petitioner/impleading applicant to urge all his contentions and put forth his grievances in the earlier suit in O.S.No.2545/2025 already instituted by him which is pending before the competent Civil Court. Further consequent upon

¶56

7 -

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:37 WP No. 32782 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

rejecting the impleadment application, the trial Court did not see any impediment to proceed to accept the compromise which was voluntarily entered into between the plaintiff and defendants and passed a compromise decree and disposed of the suit.

¶60

Under these circumstances, having regard to the undisputed fact that the petitioner/impleading applicant had already instituted an earlier suit in O.S.No.2545/2025 prior to seeking impleadment in the present suit in O.S.No.747/2025 and much prior to the impugned order, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court, which would occasion failure of justice or cause any prejudice to the rights of the parties or the petitioner/impleading applicant who had already instituted a separate suit seeking ventilation of his grievances.

¶61

Under these circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition without interfering with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court and by issuing certain directions.

¶62

(i) Writ Petition is hereby disposed of

¶63

without interfering with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.

¶64

8 -

¶65

NC: 2026:KHC:37 WP No. 32782 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

(ii) It is made clear that since the

¶68

petitioner/impleading applicant is not a party to the suit in O.S.No.747/2025 or the compromise decree passed therein, the said compromise decree would not be binding upon the petitioner/impleading applicant nor affect his rights and contentions.

¶69

(iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner/impleading applicant and respondents to urge all their contentions and work out their remedies in O.S.No.2545/2025 pending before the Civil Court.

¶70

(iv) All rival contentions on all aspects of the

¶71

matter between all the parties are kept open and no

¶72

opinion is expressed on the same.

¶73

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶74

BMV*

¶75

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Ibc Knowledge Park Pvt. Ltd. v. Sri.Ziaulla Sheriff

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ibc Knowledge Park Pvt. Ltd. v. Sri.Ziaulla Sheriff

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

M/S S.R.S Travels and Logistics Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

D.V Constructions Vs Union of India

Sri Syed Khaleel Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Ramakrishnaiah Vs Sri. Shivashankaraiah

Sri P Ramanjinappa Vs Sri Muniyappa

Smt. Sowmya Vs Sri. P. G. Sreehari