S.RAMESH v. MANJU J E

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O SRI. K. KEMPASHIVANAIAH R/AT NO.2, SHIVANANDA NAGAR, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:142 WP No. 35035 of 2025 HC-KAR J.P.NAGAR, 6TH PHASE, BANGALORE - 560 078 (NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 05.01.2026) *** …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.10.2025 ON I.A.NO.II IN O.S.NO.748/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT KANAKAPURA VIDE ANNX-A, ETC. 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 ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs: "(i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari, quashing the Order dated:

08.10.2025 on IA.No.II in OS. No.748/2023 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., at Kanakapura, vide Annexure-A, (ii) Issue any other Order or direction to meet the ends of justice."

2. This petition by impleading applicant O.S.No.748/2023 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura, is directed against the impugned order dated - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:142 WP No. 35035 of 2025 HC-KAR

08.10.2025 passed on I.A.No.II, whereby the said application filed by the petitioner/impleading applicant under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking impleadment as additional defendant No.2 is rejected by the Trial Court.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. For the order proposed, notice to respondent Nos.1 and 2 is dispensed with.

4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent No.1/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the second respondent/defendant for specific performance of an alleged Sale Agreement dated 21.07.2022 alleged to have been executed by the second respondent favour of respondent. The said suit is pending consideration before the Trial Court.

5. During the pendency of the said suit, petitioner/impleading applicant sought impleadment as additional defendant No.2, on the ground that prior to the alleged Sale Agreement dated 21.07.2022 alleged to have been executed - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:142 WP No. 35035 of 2025 HC-KAR by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, the defendant had executed an earlier Sale Agreement dated 08.01.2021 in favour of the petitioner/impleading applicant who was entitled to be impleaded as an additional defendant No.2 in the suit, as a proper and necessary party to the suit. The said application having been opposed by the first respondent/plaintiff, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order, rejecting the application, by holding as under: "xxx

7. Plaintiff has filed this suit for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 21/07/2022 directing the defendant to execute the sale deed in his favour. Defendant has filed written statement denying the plaint averments. At this stage, applicant has come up with this application praying to implead him as defendant in the suit on the ground that, defendant has executed an agreement of sale dated 08/01/2021 in his favour agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for Rs.65,00,000/- and that he has paid advance amount of Rs.58,50,000/-.

8. Agreement of sale relied upon by the plaintiff in this suit is dated 21/07/2022, which is a registered agreement of sale. The agreement of sale relied upon by the impleaidng applicant dated 08/01/2021 is an unregistered document. Applicant has produced the copy of the said document before this Court. - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:142 WP No. 35035 of 2025 HC-KAR

9. Applicant has mentioned the date of agreement of sale as 23/08/2017. However, by referring to the copy of the document produced by him, this Court is of the opinion that, the date mentioned in the paragraph No.4 of the affidavit is incorrect and it could be read as 08/01/2021.

10. Be that as it may, impleading applicant has not filed any suit against the defendant for specific performance of the alleged agreement of sale dated 08/01/2021. In the said agreement of sale, only two months time was stipulated and same was expired long back. Claim of the impleading applicant with respect to the alleged agreement of sale dated 08/01/2021 cannot be adjudicated in this suit. If he has got any right, he is required to establish the same in an appropriate proceedings i.e., by filing independent suit. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that presence of the impleading applicant as defendant in this suit is not at all necessary for proper adjudication.

11. Impleadment of the applicant as defendant in this suit will enlarge the scope of this suit and also leads to unnecessary delay. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that impleading applicant has not made out grounds to implead him as defendant in this suit."

6. As can be seen from the impugned order, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner/impleading applicant who claims an independent right, title over the suit schedule property which was independent of the alleged Sale Agreement - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:142 WP No. 35035 of 2025 HC-KAR said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff would be entitled to ventilate his grievances by filing a separate suit. The finding recorded by the Trial Court that the petitioner/impleading applicant, not being a party to the alleged Sale Agreement said to have been executed between defendant and the plaintiff cannot seek impleadment, is in consonance and conformity with various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court including the judgment in the case of Kasturi Vs. Uyyamperumal and Others reported in AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 2813.

7. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner/impleading applicant is not a party to the alleged Sale Agreement alleged to have been executed between the defendant and the plaintiff in the instant suit and consequently it cannot be said that the petitioner was either a proper or a necessary party to the said suit, particularly, when no relief was sought for against the petitioner/impleading applicant in the said suit.

8. Insofar contention petitioner/impleading applicant that the respondents who are the - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:142 WP No. 35035 of 2025 HC-KAR plaintiff and defendant in the said suit would attempt to compromise the said suit among themselves by collusion, thereby affecting the rights of the petitioner/impleading applicant is concerned, it is needless to state that since the petitioner/impleading applicant has not been permitted to be impleaded as a party to the said suit, any order/judgment/decree/compromise decree, etc., passed/to be passed in the said suit, would not affect the alleged rights or contentions of the petitioner/impleading applicant, who would also be entitled to ventilate his grievances by taking recourse to such remedies as are available in law and consequently, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to have occasioned failure of justice, warranting interference by this Court in the present petition, in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of (i) Radhey Shyam and Another Vs. Chhabi Nath and Ors. reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423 (ii) K.P. Natarajan and Another Vs. Muthalammal & Ors. reported in AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 3443 and (iii) Mohamed Ali Vs. Jaya & Ors. reported in (2022) 10 SCC 477.

9. In the result, I pass the following: - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:142 WP No. 35035 of 2025 HC-KAR ORDER (i) Writ Petition is hereby disposed of, without interfering with the impugned order dated

08.10.2025 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Kanakapura, I.A.No.II O.S.No.748/2023. It is, however, made clear that any order/judgment/decree/compromise decree etc., passed / to be passed in the Original Suit No.748/2023 would not be binding upon the petitioner/impleading applicant nor would it affect his alleged rights and contentions over the suit schedule properties. (ii) Liberty is also reserved in favour of the petitioner/impleading applicant to take recourse to such remedies as are available in law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMV* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23