Disposed¶61

Sri. K. Vijaykumar v. Smt. Nalina .S

Karnataka HC2 Mar 2026WP/5772/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Impleadment of purchaser/agreement holder in final decree proceedings; FDP.No.46/2014; O.S.No.4032/2011 partition decree; O.S.No.7046/2011 specific performance decree; RFA.No.641/2022 pending; Division Bench interim order dated 03.06.2022 restraining precipitation of FDP; Order I Rule 10(2) CPC; Order 20 Rule 18 CPC; Section 151 CPC; Article 227 of the Constitution of India; writ of certiorari; XX Addl. City Civil Judge (CCH-32) Bengaluru; necessary or proper party; contentions kept open; NC: 2026:KHC:12501; decided 02.03.2026; Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; no relief granted on the impleadment challenge at this stage — all contentions kept open to be adjudicated before the pending RFA.No.641/2022. ¶61

Sri. K. Vijaykumar Vs Smt. Nalina .S — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of; no relief granted on the impleadment challenge at this stage — all contentions kept open to be adjudicated before the pending RFA.No.641/2022.

¶61

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who claims under an agreement of sale dated 01.12.2006 and holds a decreed specific performance suit (O.S.No.7046/2011) currently under appeal in RFA.No.641/2022, could be impleaded as a party to the final decree proceedings in FDP.No.46/2014 arising out of the partition decree in O.S.No.4032/2011. +1 more

¶56

Ratio / Principle

In view of the Division Bench order in RFA.No.641/22, the right of the petitioner stands protected till the adjudication of the appeal filed by the respondents.

¶61

Key takeaways

Taking note of the interim order dated 03.06.2022 passed by the Division Bench in RFA.No.641/22, the Court disposed of the writ petition, keeping all contentions open to be adjudicated before the pending RFA; the merits of the impleadment question were not decided.ratio¶61

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), single Judge (Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.), W.P. No.5772/2020 (GM-CPC), order dated 02.03.2026 (NC: 2026:KHC:12501), under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner, claiming under an agreement of sale dated 01.12.2006 and armed with a decree for specific performance in O.S.No.7046/2011 (under challenge in RFA.No.641/2022 before a Division Bench), sought impleadment in FDP.No.46/2014 — the final decree proceedings flowing from the partition decree in O.S.No.4032/2011 — by I.A.No.4 filed under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Order 20 Rule 18 along with Section 151 CPC; the XX Addl. City Civil Judge (CCH-32), Bengaluru rejected it by order dated 21.12.2019 (Annexure-H). The Single Judge noted that by interim order dated 03.06.2022 in RFA.No.641/22 the Division Bench had directed the appellants not to precipitate the final decree proceedings during the pendency of the appeal, so the petitioner's right stood protected till adjudication of the appeal. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, keeping all contentions open to be adjudicated before the pending RFA; the merits of whether the petitioner is a necessary or proper party to the FDP were left undecided. No precedents were cited.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:12501 W.P. No.5772/2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.5772/2020 (GM-CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI. K. VIJAYKUMAR SON OF LATE KENDAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.13, BINNY LAYOUT 1ST MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR CLUB ROAD BENGALURU-560040.

¶12

(BY SRI. KRISHNA MURTHY V, ADV.,)

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

AND:

¶15

SMT. NALINA .S DAUGHTER OF SRI. B. SREENIVASAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.2646, 1ST FLOOR 4TH CROSS, 14TH MAIN ROAD E BLOCK, SAHAKARANAGAR BENGALURU-32.

¶16

SMT. SUSHEELAMMA @ GANGAMMA WIFE OF SRI. B. SREENIVASAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.6, 3RD CROSS 2ND MAIN ROAD, L.N.PURA BENGALURU-560021.

¶17

SRI. B. MURTHY SON OF LATE BYLAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:12501 W.P. No.5772/2020

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

RESIDING AT NO.3398, OPP S.B.M. 4TH CROSS, GAYATHRINAGAR BENGALURU-560021.

¶22

SRI. B. RAVIPRAKASH S/O LATE BYLAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.6, 3RD CROSS 2ND MAIN ROAD, L.N.PURA BEGNALURU-560021.

¶23

SMT. SUMANGALA DAUGHTER OF BYLAPPA WIFE OF SRI. G. SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.486, 2ND CROSS 3RD C MAIN ROAD, MANJUNATHANAGR BENGALURU-560010.

¶24

SMT. B. JAYALAKSHMI DAUGHTER OF BYLAPPA WIFE OF SRI. M.B. GOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.2622, 9TH CROSS 14TH MAIN ROAD, SAHAKARANAGAR BENGALURU-32.

¶25

SMT. BHAGYALAKSHMI @ SEEMA DAUGHTER OF LATE BYLAPPA WIFE OF MR. NOOR AHMED AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.173, 1ST CROSS 4TH MAIN ROAD, VIVEKNAGAR BENGALURU-47.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. ASHWATHNARAYANA REDDY Y.V. ADV., FOR R1 & R3 SRI. K.B. LOKANATH, ADV., FOR C/R2)

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:12501 W.P. No.5772/2020

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2019 ANNXH PASSED IN I.A.NO.4 IN FDP NO.46/2014, FILED U/O I RULE 10(2) R/W ORDER 20 RULE 18 ALONG WITH SEC. 151 OF CPC BY THE XX ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH-32) AT BENGALURU & ETC.

¶32

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

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶36

"1. Issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the Order Dated 21.12.2019 [Annexure-H] passed on I.A.No.4 in FDP.No.46/2014, filed under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Order 20 Rule 18 along with Section 151 of CPC by the XX Addl. City Civil Judge (CCH-32), at Bengaluru.

¶37

2. Further, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the I.A.No.4 in FDP.No.46/2014, filed under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Order 20 Rule 18 along with Section 151 of CPC on the file of XX Addl. City Civil Judge (CCH-32), at Bengaluru. [Annexure-F], in the interest of justice and equity.

¶38

3. Issue any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶39

Sri.Krishna Murthy V., learned counsel for the

¶40

petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit in

¶41

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:12501 W.P. No.5772/2020

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

O.S.No.7046/2011 seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 01.12.2006 which came to be decreed. Being aggrieved, the respondents have preferred RFA.No.641/2022 which is pending consideration before this Court. It is submitted that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed O.S.No.4032/2011 against respondent Nos.3 to 7 for partition and separate possession and the said suit came to be decreed. Pursuant thereto, respondent Nos.1 and 2 initiated final decree proceedings in FDP.No.46/2014 against respondent Nos.3 to 7 for drawing up of the final decree based on the preliminary decree in O.S.No.4032/2011. It is further submitted that the petitioner herein has filed an application seeking to implead himself as a party in FDP.No.46/2014 which came to be rejected, and the same is under challenge in the present writ petition. It is also submitted that in the pending RFA, this Court has granted an interim protection to the petitioner by directing that the FDP proceedings shall not be precipitated during the

¶45

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:12501 W.P. No.5772/2020

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

pendency of the appeal. In view of the same, he seeks to dispose of the writ petition.

¶49

Per contra, Sri.Aswathanarayana Reddy Y.V.,

¶50

learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 3 and Sri.K.B Lokanath, learned counsel for respondent No.2 support the order of the trial Court and submit that the petitioner is only an agreement holder and no rights are conferred on him by way of such agreement. It is further submitted that the suit which was decreed in favour of the petitioner is assailed before this Court in the regular first appeal, which is pending adjudication. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be termed as a necessary or a proper party to the final decree proceedings. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

¶51

I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:12501 W.P. No.5772/2020

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

The material on record indicates that the

¶56

petitioner claims rights based on the agreement of sale dated 01.12.2006. The said agreement was sought to be enforced in O.S.No.7046/2011, which was decreed in his favour and the same was challenged by the landowners in RFA.No.641/2022, which is pending adjudication before this Court. It is to be noticed that meanwhile, respondent Nos.1 and 2 instituted O.S.No.4032/2011 for partition and separate possession, which came to be decreed. Thereafter, they initiated final decree proceedings in FDP.No.46/2014, wherein the petitioner has filed an application to implead himself in the said proceedings and the same came to be rejected by the FDP Court under the impugned order.

¶57

It is pertinent to note that in the RFA filed by the respondents, a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.06.2022 has passed a detailed order, wherein the appellants are directed not to precipitate the final

¶58

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:12501 W.P. No.5772/2020

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

decree proceedings during the pendency of the appeal. In view of the aforesaid order, the right of the petitioner has been protected till the adjudication of the appeal filed by the respondents. Accordingly, taking note of the interim order dated 03.06.2022 passed by the Division Bench in RFA.No.641/22, the writ petition is disposed of, keeping all the contentions open to be adjudicated before the pending RFA.

¶62

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶63

ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Sri. K. Vijaykumar v. Smt. Nalina .S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. K. Vijaykumar v. Smt. Nalina .S

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 Kemparaju Vs Sri M R Rajath

Sri. Sridhar Alias S. Sridhar Vs Smt. Kumudha

Sri Anjina Reddy Vs Sri K Mohan Raju

Sri Pranesh Bhat Vs Sri Kishor Kumar

C. Sreedharan Vs Smt. Papamma

Sri Sundarappa Vs Smt Lakshmi Sadanandan