Allowed¶51

Jayaram v. Puttamma

Civil Procedure – impleadment of party

Karnataka HC22 Jan 2026WP/36496/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; W.P. No.36496/2024 (GM-CPC) under Article 227; Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil; certiorari against rejection of impleading application (Order I Rule 10 r/w Section 151 CPC) for non-prosecution in partition suit O.S.No.39/2022 (Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Arakalagud); restoration of I.A.16; proposed defendant No.9 claiming agreement of sale dated 01.02.2016 from defendant No.5; one more opportunity granted; conditional cost of Rs. 2,000 to plaintiff; no merits decided; decision dated 22.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned order dated 22.07.2024 on I.A.16 set aside; I.A.16 restored to the file of the trial Court; petitioner to make submissions at the next hearing without adjournment, subject to Rs. 2,000 cost to respondent No.1/plaintiff ¶51

Jayaram Vs Puttamma — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 22.07.2024 rejecting the petitioner's impleading application (I.A.16) in O.S.No.39/2022 should be quashed and the petitioner permitted to prosecute his impleadment as proposed defendant No.9, i.e., whether one more opportunity should be granted to him.

¶36

Court's answer

Although the trial Court had provided a reasonable opportunity to the proposed defendant No.9 which was not availed, one more opportunity is required to be provided since the petitioner specifically asserts a right over the property; accordingly the petition is allowed.

¶48

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 22.07.2024 passed on I.A.16 by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Arakalagud is set aside and I.A.16 is restored on the file of the trial Court.

¶51

Key takeaways

The petitioner/proposed defendant No.9 shall make submissions on the restored I.A.16 at the next date of hearing without seeking adjournment, subject to payment of Rs. 2,000 cost to respondent No.1/plaintiff.ratio¶52
This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case or of the application; the merits remain open before the trial Court.obiter¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Procedure — impleadment of party — application under Order I Rule 10 r/w Section 151 CPC dismissed by trial Court for non-prosecution due to absence of applicant's counsel on two dates — Writ under Article 227 — Held, though reasonable opportunity had been given and was not availed, one more opportunity was warranted as the petitioner specifically asserted a right over the suit property (claiming a further agreement of sale dated 01.02.2016 executed by defendant No.5 in a partition suit); impugned order dated 22.07.2024 in O.S.No.39/2022 set aside and I.A.16 restored; petitioner to argue the restored application at the next hearing without adjournment, subject to Rs. 2,000 cost to the plaintiff; no opinion expressed on the merits of the case or the application.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:3632 W.P. No.36496/2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.36496/2024 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

JAYARAM S/O NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS DASARA KOPPALU HASSAN TOWN Digitally signed by HASSAN TALUK-573102. ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: High Court Of (BY SRI. GOPI G.A. ADV.,) Karnataka

¶9

(BY SRI. GOPI G.A. ADV.,)

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

AND:

¶12

PUTTAMMA AGE 70 YEARS W/O VENKATESHAIAH D/O RAMA @ MOKALI KARIYAIAH R/O LAKSHMIPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI ARAKALGUD TALUK-573102.

¶13

CHIKKAMMA

¶14

AGE 75 YEARS D/O RAMA @ MOKALI KARIYAIAH W/O LATE DYAVAIAH R/O VIJIPURA VILLAGE, 1ST COLONY KASABA HOBLI ARAKALGUD TALUK-573102.

¶15

PONNAMMA AGE 53 YEARS

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:3632 W.P. No.36496/2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

D/O RAMA @ MOKALI KARIYAIAH W/O LATE JAVARAIAH.

¶20

M.P. ROOPA AGE 36 YEARS D/O RAMAIAH @ PUTTASWAMY W/O ANANDA B.S.

¶21

M.P. SHASHIKALA AGE 34 YEARS D/O RAMAIAH @ PUTTASWAMY W/O SUDHEER KUMAR.

¶22

M.P. RANGASWAMY AGE 32 YEARS

¶23

D/O RAMAIAH @ PUTTASWAMY.

¶24

RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 6 ARE R/O PETE MACHAGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, ARAKALGUD TALUK-573102.

¶25

SOMANNA AGED 48 YEARS S/O RAJANNA R/O. PETE, BRIGHTS CONVENT ROAD ARAKALAGUD TOWN-573102.

¶26

P.N. NATESHA AGED 47 YEARS S/O LATE P.N. NANJAPPASHETTY R/O. PETE MAIN ROAD ARAKALAGUD TOWN-573102.

¶27

T. ANANDA AGED 38 YEARS S/O THIMMEGOWDA R/O. HENTAGERE ROAD ARAKALAGUD TOWN-573102.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:3632 W.P. No.36496/2024

¶30

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARKALAGUD ON I.A.16 FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE ON 22/07/2024, IN O.S. NO.39/2022, AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO IMPLEAD HIMSELF AS DEFENDANT NO.9 IN THE SAID SUIT & ETC.

¶33

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

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

¶36

"i) Issue writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Arkalgud on IA.No.16 filed under order 1 rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code on 22.07.2024, in OS.No.39/2022, as per Annexure-A and permit the petitioner to implead himself as defendant No.9 in the said suit.

¶37

ii) To pass such other reliefs as deems fit by this Hon'ble Court as required under the circumstances in the interest of justice and equity."

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession in O.S.No.39/2022 and in the said

¶39

suit, the petitioner herein has filed an application to implead himself as proposed defendant No.9 on the

¶40

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:3632 W.P. No.36496/2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

ground that defendant No.5 in the suit has executed another agreement of sale in favour of the petitioner on 01.02.2016, and that the petitioner is a necessary and proper party to the suit. However, the trial Court without considering the said application on merits, dismissed the application for non-prosecution on the ground that the counsel representing the proposed defendant No.9 was absent. It is submitted that the counsel representing proposed defendant No.9 was not available as he was suffering from viral fever. It is further submitted that one opportunity may be provided to the proposed defendant No.9 and on the given date he would make the submission on the application and the trial Court can consider the same in accordance with law.

¶43

Taking note of the relief sought in the petition

¶44

and also keeping in mind the fact that the order which this court intended to pass would not prejudice the right of the other side, notice was not issued to the respondents.

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:3632 W.P. No.36496/2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

The material on record indicates that in a suit

¶48

filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff, the petitioner filed an application under Order I Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the CPC') to implead himself as proposed defendant No.9 and the said application was rejected by the trial Court for non prosecution on the ground that the counsel for the proposed defendant No.9 was absent on 01.07.2024 and 08.07.2024 and ultimately, the rejection order came to be passed on 22.07.2024. In my considered view, the trial Court has provided a reasonable opportunity to the proposed defendant No.9 to make submissions, however, the same was not availed. Be that as it may, I am of the considered view that one more opportunity is required to be provided, as the petitioner is specifically making assertion with regard to the right over the property. In view of the above, the petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly, allowed .

¶49

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:3632 W.P. No.36496/2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

The impugned order dated 22.07.2024 passed on IA.No.16 filed under Order I Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of the CPC by the petitioner in OS.No.39/2022 by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Arakalagud is hereby set aside and IA.No.16 is restored on the file of the trial Court.

¶52

The petitioner/proposed defendant No.9 shall make submissions on the application in IA No.16, which is restored on the file of the trial Court on the next date of hearing without seeking any adjournment, subject to the petitioner paying a cost of ₹2,000 to the respondent No.1/plaintiff.

¶53

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the case as well as the application.

¶54

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶55

ABK

¶56

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Jayaram v. Puttamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayaram v. Puttamma

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 Venkateshappa Vs Sri Ekashi Muniyappa

Smt K Munirathnamma Vs Sri K Padmanabaiah

M S Narayana Reddy Vs M Venkataramana Reddy

Smt K a Mallige Vs Smt. Lingamma Alias Ningamma

M/S Sree Kumaran Silks, Vs M/S Sree Rudramma Vastra Bhandar

Mahantesh Alias Malthesh Vs B Venkatesh