SRI. RAGHAVENDRA PRASAD M.S. ADV.,) v. (BY SRI. RISHYAK R. BANAVARA, ADV., FOR R1 & R2)

SMT. N. CHAMPA W/O V.K. KRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/A NO.75 (OLD NO.38) 4TH CROSS, KODANDARAMAPURA MALLESHWARM, BENGALURU-560003. (BY SRI. NITHISH V, ADV., FOR SRI. RAGHAVENDRA PRASAD M.S. ADV.,) …PETITIONER AND:

MR. SYED MOHAMMED SALEEM S/O MR. SYED KAREEM AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/A NO.5, 12TH MAIN BRINDAVAN NAGAR MATHIKERE, NEAR J P PARK BENGALURU-560054.

SMT. B.K. USHA W/O LATE N. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/A NO.61, 5TH CROSS 8TH MAIN ROAD, SBM COLONY BRINDAVAN NAGAR MATHIKERE, BENGALURU-560054. (BY SRI. RISHYAK R. BANAVARA, ADV., FOR R1 & R2) …RESPONDENTS HC-KAR - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:38332 W.P. No.3305/2021 CNR: KAHC010073152021 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTUION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.01.2021 IN O.S NO.25253/2020 PASSED BY THE 74TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-75) ON IA NO.2 WHICH IS ANNEXURE-D AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER SUITABLE RELIEFS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated

25.01.2021 passed on I.A.No.2 in OS.No.25253/2020 by the LXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-75), (for short ‘the trial Court’).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. HC-KAR - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:38332 W.P. No.3305/2021 CNR: KAHC010073152021

Respondent No.1 a OS.No.25253/2020 against respondent No.2 seeking the relief of permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs. In the said suit, the trial Court granted temporary injunction against respondent No.2. Thereafter, plaintiff filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking to implead the petitioner herein as defendant No.2 in the suit. The said application was opposed by the petitioner. The trial Court, under the impugned order allowed the impleadment, which is under challenge in the present petition.

It is to be noticed that respondent No.1, in the affidavit accompanying the application has specifically averred that after obtaining an order of temporary injunction against respondent No.2, the proposed defendant No.2 i.e. the petitioner herein, along with some goonda elements approached the plaintiff on 05.03.2020 HC-KAR - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:38332 W.P. No.3305/2021 CNR: KAHC010073152021 and came near the suit schedule property, started abusing the plaintiff and forced him to vacate the said property. It is further asserted that the petitioner claims to be the owner of the suit schedule property by gift deed dated

07.12.2015.

The petitioner claims to be the owner of the suit schedule property under the gift deed dated 07.12.2015 stated to have been executed by respondent No.2 and the plaintiff is making a specific assertion that on the strength of such title, the petitioner along with some goonda elements have tried to vacate the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. The petitioner being the owner of the suit schedule property and she tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff who claims to be the tenant under respondent No.2, who is a necessary and proper party. The plaintiff cannot be compelled to file a separate suit against the petitioner and the trial Court considering all these aspects has rightly allowed the application. I do HC-KAR - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:38332 W.P. No.3305/2021 CNR: KAHC010073152021 not find any error in the order calling for interference in the present petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16