Case Note & Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Trial Court's order dated 01.10.2022 that dismissed their application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC to be impleaded as parties in a specific performance suit (O.S.No.351/2011). The suit involved property claimed by the petitioners through a registered sale deed dated 02.09.2006, while the original suit was filed by respondent No.1 against respondent Nos.2 and 3 based on an Agreement to Sell dated 09.01.1997. The petitioners argued they were necessary parties as owners, and the Trial Court's dismissal was erroneous. The High Court, after hearing arguments and considering the title chain presented, held that the petitioners, having a direct interest in the property, are necessary parties to avoid multiplicity of litigation. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court set aside the Impugned Order, allowed the writ petition, and directed the Trial Court to implead the petitioners as defendants, emphasizing the need for their participation in the suit for proper adjudication.
Headnote
The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, set aside the Trial Court's order dated 01.10.2022 that dismissed an application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) -- The petitioners, claiming ownership and possession of the suit property via a registered sale deed dated 02.09.2006, sought impleadment in a specific performance suit (O.S.No.351/2011) filed by respondent No.1 against respondent Nos.2 and 3 -- The Trial Court held the petitioners were neither necessary nor proper parties -- The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedent in Sumtibai and others Vs. Paras Finance Co.Regg. Partnership Firm Beawer(Raj) through Mankanwar (Smt) w/o Parsmal Chordia (dead) and others (2007) 10 SCC 82, held that persons with direct interest in the property, such as owners, are necessary parties to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure effective adjudication -- The Court found the Impugned Order suffered from infirmity as it failed to consider the petitioners' title chain and ownership rights, warranting interference under Article 227 -- The petition was allowed, setting aside the Impugned Order and directing the Trial Court to implead the petitioners as defendants
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: The Issue of whether the petitioners, claiming ownership and possession of the suit property through a registered sale deed, are necessary and proper parties to be impleaded in a specific performance suit under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Impugned Order dated 01.10.2022, and directed the Trial Court to implead the petitioners as defendants in O.S.No.351/2011
2026 LawText (KAR) (01) 23
Writ Petition No. 22568 of 2022 (GM-CPC)
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju
Sri. Narasimha Prasad S D. for petitioners, Sri. Surya Kanth C S. for respondent No.1
Smt. Kavalkunte Geetha Bhavani, Smt. Lakshmi Devi, Smt. N. Padmavathi, Sri. D. Mohan Kumar, Sri. N. Suresh Kumar Reddy, Sri. T. Krishnamohan Reddy, Sri. Chittamuru Venkatasubba Reddy, Sri. Chukkaluru Vasudeva Reddy
Sri. N. A. Krishnamurthy, Smt. Muniyamma @ Sheekalamma, Sri. B. M. Manjunath, Smt. Chukkaluru Bharathi, Sri. Lakonda Nagaprasada Rao
Premium Content
The Indexes are only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case indexes
Nature of Litigation: Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging a Trial Court order in a civil suit
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to quash the Impugned Order dated 01.10.2022 and allow their impleadment application
Filing Reason
The Trial Court dismissed the petitioners' application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead them as parties in O.S.No.351/2011, a specific performance suit
Previous Decisions
Trial Court passed the Impugned Order on 01.10.2022 dismissing the impleadment application; High Court granted stay of proceedings on 17.11.2022
Issues
Whether the petitioners are necessary and proper parties to be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC in the specific performance suit
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued they are owners and in possession of the suit property via a registered sale deed dated 02.09.2006 and produced title chain evidence -- They contended the suit between respondent No.1 and respondent Nos.2 and 3 is collusive as the defendants lack ownership -- Reliance was placed on Supreme Court decision in Sumtibai case to support impleadment of property owners
Ratio Decidendi
Persons having a direct interest in the subject matter of litigation, such as ownership rights evidenced by a registered sale deed, are necessary parties under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure effective adjudication -- The Trial Court's failure to implead such parties renders the order infirm and subject to interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
Judgment Excerpts
The present petition seeks to challenge an order dated 01.10.2022 in O.S.No.351/2011 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, at Devanahalli -- By the Impugned Order, an application by the proposed applicants filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to implead them as necessary parties was dismissed -- The petitioners are the owners and in possession of the suit schedule property having obtained the same by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 02.09.2006 -- The Impugned Order suffers from an infirmity inasmuch as the learned Trial Court has wrongly held that petitioners were not necessary and proper parties -- Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sumtibai and others Vs. Paras Finance Co.Regg. Partnership Firm Beawer(Raj) through Mankanwar (Smt) w/o Parsmal Chordia (dead) and others (2007) 10 SCC 82
Procedural History
Suit for specific performance (O.S.No.351/2011) filed by respondent No.1 against respondent Nos.2 and 3 -- Petitioners filed application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC for impleadment -- Trial Court dismissed application via order dated 01.10.2022 -- Petitioners filed writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India in High Court -- High Court granted stay of proceedings on 17.11.2022 -- High Court heard and decided matter on 30.01.2026
Premium Content
The Indexes are only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case indexes
