Karnataka High Court
WP/3994/2026 of SRI R C NAGARAJU Vs KUM S M MAHESHWARI on 7 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010077592026 NC: 2026:KHC:48281 WP No. 3994 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 3994 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI R C NAGARAJU, S/O.CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 59
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3994 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI R C NAGARAJU,
S/O.CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/O RAMACHANDRAPURA VILLAGE-572 201
KASABA HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI HARISH N.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
KUM S M MAHESHWARI,
D/O.LATE MUNISWAMAIAH,
R/O.C.N.ROAD, TIPTUR TOWN-572 201
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
TIPTUR TALUK.
2.
SMT. S. M. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA,
D/O.LATE MUNISWAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/O.C.N.ROAD, TIPTUR TOWN-572 201
TIPTUR TALUK.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAJANIKANTH L. S., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI SANTOSH M HAGALAMBI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
Digitally signed
by VINUTHA B
S
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
J.M.F.C, TIPTUR ON IA NO.I IN FDP.NO.28/2023 DTD
15.12.2025 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
This writ petition has been filed impugning the order dated 15.12.2025 passed in FDP No.28/2023, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased one of the suit schedule properties during the pendency of the partition suit, and that the decree came to be passed rejecting the petitioner’s claim and allotting a share which included the property purchased by the petitioner. It is submitted that a first appeal impugning the said decree has been filed. It is further submitted that, as the petitioner is in possession of the property, the petitioner is a necessary and proper party to the FDP proceedings.
HC-KAR
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the trial Court, having taken note of the fact that the purchase was made during the pendency of the suit, when a temporary injunction was in operation, and that no right was conferred upon the petitioner under the decree, has rightly rejected the application for impleadment.
4. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
5. The principal ground urged for seeking impleadment is the pendency of R.A. No.55/2023, which has been filed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.224/2011. It appears that, though R.A. No.55/2023 has been pending since 2023, no interim order has been passed by the First Appellate Court. If the petitioner has any grievance against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.224/2011, it is for the petitioner to seek appropriate interim protection in the pending first appeal proceedings.
HC-KAR
6. As rightly observed by the trial Court, the petitioner is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the FDP proceedings.
7. The petition, being devoid of merits, is accordingly rejected.
Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE
VP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25