Karnataka High Court
WP/4813/2023 of M/S. MANYATA PROMOTORS PVT. LTD., Vs SRI. V. VENKATESH on 31 August 2026
CNR: KAHC010108102023 NC: 2026:KHC:47223 W.P. No.4813/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A . PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.4813/2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: M/S. MANYATA PROMOTORS PVT. LTD., A COMPANY
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.4813/2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
M/S. MANYATA PROMOTORS PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT NO.9/1, CLASSIC COURT
RICHMOND ROAD, BANGALORE - 560025
REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
SRI. Y. SRIMUKHA.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH K.S. ADV., FOR
SRI. RADHANANDAN B.S. ADV.,)
AND:
1.
SRI. V. VENKATESH
S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
2.
SMT. VENKATALAKSHMI
D/O VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
3.
SRI. MUNIRAJ
S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.
4.
SRI. GOPAL
S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
Digitally signed
by RUPA V
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
5.
SRI. VIJAY KUMAR
S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.
6.
SMT. PADMAVATHI
D/O VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.
7.
SRI. MAHESH
S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.
8.
SRI. RAVI
S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.
9.
SRI. SRINIVAS
S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.
10.
SMT. AMRUTHA
D/O VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS.
11.
SRI. VENKATARAMANAPPA
S/O LATE HOTTEMAYANNA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
12.
SMT. THIMMAKKA
W/O LATE DODDARANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.
13.
SRI. RAVI KUMAR
S/O NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
14.
SRI. PRABHAKAR
S/O LATE PILLAVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.
HC-KAR
15.
SMT. NANJAMMA
W/O MOOGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
16.
SRI. VENKATAPPA
S/O VARADAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.
17.
SRI. VENKATARAMANAPPA
S/O MULAVAGILAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
18.
SRI. VARADARAJ
S/O MULAVAGILAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
19.
SRI. DODDANAMBIGA
S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
20.
SRI. CHIKKANAMBIGA
S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
21.
SRI. MUNIVENKATAPPA
S/O LATE CHIKKERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.
22.
SRI. CHIKKANNA
S/O LATE CHIKKERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.
23.
SRI. MUNIYAPPA
S/O LATE CHIKKERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
24.
SRI. KODANDI
S/O JAYARAM
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
HC-KAR
25.
SRI. RAMESH
S/O LATE HOBALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
26.
SRI. GORRAPPA @ MUNIYA
S/O LATE DODDANANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
27.
SRI. MUNIVENKATAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
28.
SRI. VENKATESH
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
29.
SRI. CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
30.
SRI. D. VENKATAPPA
S/O LATE DEKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.
31.
SRI. KARIVENKATAPPA
S/O LATE DEKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
32.
SRI. N. VASUDEVA
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
33.
SRI. HANUMAPPA
S/O LATE CHIKKANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
34.
SRI. SRINIVAS
S/O LATE SEETHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.
HC-KAR
35.
SRI. VENKATESHAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIMAYANNA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.
36.
SRI. RAGHAVENDRA
S/O LATE M. KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.
37.
SRI. MUNIVENKATAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIMAYANNA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
38.
SRI. NAMBIYAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIMAYANNA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
39.
SRI. MUNIVENKATAPPA
S/O LATE ERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
40.
SRI. HOMBALAPPA
S/O MUNISHAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.
41.
SMT. NARAYANAMMA
W/O THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
42.
SMT. THIMMAKKA
W/O DODDARANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.
43.
SMT. MUNIYAMMA
W/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
44.
SRI. RAMESH
S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
HC-KAR
R1 TO R44 ARE ALL
R/AT NAGAWARA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE - 560045.
45.
SRI. A.C. SRINIVAS
S/O LATE M.M. CHIKKAVENKATAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE
YELAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE - 560064.
46.
SRI. M. THANKAPANDI
S/O MUTHUSWAMY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
47.
SRI. SREEMURUGAN
S/O MUTHUSWAMY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
48.
SRI. M. MUVENTHAR
S/O MUTHUSWAMY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
R46 TO R48 ARE R/AT.
SYSTEM ALLOYS, NO.140/1, NAGAWARA
THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD
ARABIC COLLEGE POST
BANGALORE - 560045.
49.
MAHENDRA KARLE
S/O LATE L.T. KARLE
MAJOR IN AGE.
50.
SUDARSHAN KARLE
S/O LATE L.T. KARLE
MAJOR IN AGE.
HC-KAR
R49 & R50 ARE R/AT
NAGAWARA PROJECT OFFICE
NAGAWARA RING ROAD
BENGALURU - 560045.
51.
SRI. ANAND SURANA
S/O GAVERIAR CHAND SURANA
MAJOR IN AGE
R/AT NAGAWARA ARABIC COLLEGE POST
BENGALURU – 560045.
52.
SRI. SUGUNA
W/O REDDY VEERANNA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT NO.140, KARTHIK, 10TH MAIN
5TH CROSS, R.M.A. EXTENSION
BANGALORE – 560080.
53.
SRI. TEJARAJ GULECHA
S/O PUKHARAJ
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
NO.132, SUPRIYA APARTMENT
6TH A CROSS, 9TH MAIN
R M V EXTENSION BANGALORE – 560080.
54.
SRI. KIRAN M. NAGWAR
S/O LATE G. MADHAVARAO
MAJOR IN AGE
R/AT NAGAWARA
ARABIC COLLEGE POST
BENGALURU - 560045.
55.
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE - 560020.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. THIMMAIAH K.H. ADV., FOR R1 TO R9
R10 SERVED
V/O/DTD:13.06.2023 NOTICE TO R11 TO R55 ARE D/W)
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SETTING
ASIDE THE ORDER DT 15.12.2022 ON I.A.NO.7 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
(CCH-12)
BANGALORE
CITY,
BANGALORE
IN
O.S.NO.4416/2012
BY
REJECTING
THE
APPLICATION
PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2)
OF CPC FOR IMPLEADING THE PETITIONER HEREIN AT ANNX-A
& ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
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 petition is filed challenging the order dated 15.12.2022 passed on I.A.No.7 in O.S.No.4416/2012 by the XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, (for short, ‘the trial Court’).
2. Heard Sri.Prashanth K.S., learned counsel for Sri.Radhanandan B.S., learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri.Thimmaiah K.H., learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 9 and perused the material available on record.
HC-KAR
3. The respondent Nos.1 to 10 filed the suit in O.S.No.4416/2012 seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of 10 items of suit schedule property. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’) to implead the applicant as defendant in the suit. The trial Court under the impugned order rejected the said application on the ground that the applicant failed to produce the documents to substantiate as to how the applicant is necessary and proper party to the suit.
4. It is to be noticed that the application for impleadment is filed on the ground that Item Nos.6 and 9 of the suit schedule property were acquired by the State Government by issuing the final notification dated 07.10.2002 along with other properties and thereafter the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (‘KIADB’) issued allotment letter dated 28.02.2003 allotting a site
HC-KAR
and possession was handed over by issuing the possession certificate dated 05.03.2003.
5. It is to be noticed that pursuant to the allotment, the KIADB also executed the absolute sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 05.06.2007. The perusal of the aforesaid document i.e. final notification issued under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, allotment letter, possession certificate, sale deeds dated 05.06.2007 and 13.06.2018, which indicate that Item Nos.6 and 9 properties are allotted to the writ petitioner. It is to be noticed that the defendant No.42 is the wife of the Managing Director of the petitioner company and after service of the summons, application came to be filed. Taking note of the aforesaid documents and assertion made in the application, I am of the considered view that petitioner is a necessary and proper party to the suit filed by the respondent Nos.1 to
10. HC-KAR
6. Insofar as the contention of the respondent Nos.1 to 9 that the RTC are standing in the name of defendant Nos.42 and 43 has no relevance as the petitioner has placed aforesaid documents to indicate that the land i.e., Item Nos.6 and 9, were acquired by the State Government and thereafter transferred the said land to the KIADB and the KIADB has allotted the said land and sale deed is executed.
7. Considering the aforesaid material on record, I am of the view that trial Court has committed a grave error in rejecting the application. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 15.12.2022 passed on I.A.No.7 in O.S.No.4416/2012 by the XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.7
HC-KAR
filed by the petitioner/impleading applicant is allowed. iii. The respondent Nos.1 to 10/plaintiffs shall amend the cause title and file amended cause title. iv. The petitioner is permitted to file the written statement in the said suit within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. v. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE
BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11