Karnataka High Court
WP/25038/2026 of SRI T V RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Vs DAPHNE IRIS FERTING on 12 August 2026
CNR: KAHC010553072026 NC: 2026:KHC:42754 WP No. 25038 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 25038 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI T.V.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY T.V. RAMAKRISHNA
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 25038 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI T.V.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
T.V. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY,
S/O LATE VENKATA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT KAMBALAPALLI,
CHILAMATUR MANDALAM KODURU,
HINDUPUR TALUK,
ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M. ERAPPA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
DAPHNE IRIS FERTING
W/O LANCELOT JONH FERTING
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS
R/AT STATE BANK OF INDIA
BUILDING MADRAS BANK ROAD
BENGALURU CIVIL STATION,
BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER
SRI. V. RAMAMURTHY
S/O T. VENKATACHALAPATHI SETTY
AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS
R/AT NO. 10, APPAJAPPA AGRAHARA LINE
CHAMARAJAPET
BENGALURU-560 018
Digitally signed
by SUVARNA T
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
2.
IVOR JAMES POONOO SINGH
S/O LATE ANTHONY GURIDAT SINGH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT
THE RISING SUN FARM 366,
RAMAGONDANAHALLI,
WHITEFILED
VARTHUR MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU-560 066
REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER
AND BROTHER
ANTHONY CHARLES POONOO SINGH
S/O LATE ANTHONY GURIDAT SINGH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT
THE RISING SUN FARM
366, RAMAGONDANAHALLI,
WHITEFILED
VARTHUR MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU-560 066
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU
RURAL, BENGALURU, ON 10.01.2025 ON I.A. NO.IV IN O.S.
NO.1004/2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-F.GRANT AN INTERIM
ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION OF THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL, BENGALURU ON 10.01.2025 ON AN I.A. NO. IV IN O.S.
NO.1104/2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-F PENDING DISPOSAL OF
THIS PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS
PETITION,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
HC-KAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
2
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
Aggrieved by the order dated 10.01.2025 passed in I.A.No.IV in O.S.No.1104/2023 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court.
2. The petitioner herein, who is the plaintiff, filed O.S.No.1104/2023 seeking specific performance. In the suit, the impleading applicant filed I.A.No.IV under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking permission to come on record as defendant No. 2, as he has an interest in the suit schedule property. It is his case that, against the defendant, he had obtained an order, and the said suit is pending consideration. The trial Court, by the impugned order, allowed the application.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal and Others1, except the contracting parties, no other parties are necessary parties to the suit for specific performance. But the said judgment was 1 AIR 2005 SC 2813
HC-KAR
not considered by the trial Court. It is submitted that in the light of the law laid down in Kasturi's case referred supra, this application ought not have been allowed by the trial Court.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the material on record. The Apex Court in the case of M/s. J N Real Estate Vs. Shailendra Pradhan and Others2 held that a subsequent purchaser can be impleaded in a suit for specific performance as a proper party. In those circumstances, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Hence, this Court is passing the following order:
ORDER
i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.
SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35