SMT. ARATHI KIRAN vs THE COMMISSIONER
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
®
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:37044
WP No. 9714 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010220272026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 20 DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 9714 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. ARATHI KIRAN
W/O. SRI. M.S.KIRAN,
PRESENTLY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 396/1,
KRISHNA VILAS ROAD,
DEVARAJA MOHALLA,
MYSURU -570 001
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DEVARAJU H.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
MYSURU CITY CORPORATION,
SAYYAJI RAO ROAD,
MYSURU -570 001
Digitally signed
by SUVARNA T
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. ZONAL COMMISSIONER
ZONAL OFFICE-3,
MYSURU CITY CORPORATION,
SHARADADEVI NAGARA,
MYSURU - 570 022
3. SMT.N.K.NAGALAKSHMI
W/O. LATE. H.S. SHANKARALINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
RESIDING AT S. NO. 85,
SAHUKAR CHENNAIAH ROAD,
TH
4 STAGE, T.K. LAYOUT,
KUVEMPUNAGER,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:37044
WP No. 9714 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010220272026
MYSURU - 570 009
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.AJAY KUDKOL, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI.SHASHANK PADIYAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR CONNECTED RECORDS IN RESPECT OF ORDER, DATED
28/01/2026 PASSED ON I.A. FILED IN M.A. NO. 43/2025 AT
ANNEXURE E PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MYSURU.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 15.06.2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CAV ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court questioning the order
dated 28.01.2026 passed on I.A under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC
in M.A.No.43/2025 on the file of III Addl. District & Sessions
Judge, Mysuru.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is the
owner of the property bearing Door No.20, New No.CH-2,
rd th
situated at 3 Cross, 8 Main Saraswathipuram, Chamaraja
Mohalla, Mysore. It is the case that after dismantling the
existing old building, the plan was obtained for construction of
a residential house and while constructing the residential
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:37044
WP No. 9714 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010220272026
building, respondent no.1 passed an order under Section
321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 and
the said order has been challenged in M.A.No.43/2025 on the
rd
file of 3 Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysore. In that, the
impleaded applicant, i.e., the third respondent herein, has filed
an application seeking to implead himself in the pending
proceedings. That came to be allowed by the order impugned.
3. The trial Court, while allowing the application,
observed that the petitioner herein has questioned a provisional
order dated 16.06.2025 wherein the respondent has directed
the appellant to remove alleged unauthorised construction,
constructed in violation of the sanctioned plan and license. The
matter is under scrutiny before the court. The application is
filed to implead the applicant as she is the adjoining owner and
her right is affected due to construction by the petitioner. The
court has observed that the appellant is putting up
construction. The said fact is not in dispute. It is also not in
dispute that the proposed respondent No.3/ applicant is the
owner of the adjoining property. It is also a fact that the
respondent has initiated proceedings against the appellant. The
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:37044
WP No. 9714 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010220272026
said proceeding is under scrutiny, and there is a contest
between the appellant and respondent therein with respect to
the subject matter. Now it is under scrutiny whether the
construction by the appellant is proper in accordance with the
provisions. But, since the question involved is with regard to
the construction of the building, the adjoining owner is a
necessary party to the proceedings, as the applicant may
substantiate the fact regarding implications of the construction,
and if any right is being violated, the same has to be
adjudicated. It is also to be noted that, as per the say of the
applicant, she has lodged a complaint before the authority
about the construction by the petitioner. On her complaint, the
respondent has initiated proceedings. It is also a fact that the
legality and correctness of the order by the respondent needs
to be analysed. But the say of the adjoining owner/applicant is
also to be heard. Under the given facts and circumstances of
the case, the applicant is a proper and necessary party to the
proceedings, and accordingly the trial Court has allowed the
application. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this
Court.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:37044
WP No. 9714 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010220272026
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that when the proceedings are between the
Municipal Corporation and the petitioner herein, to confirm
whether the construction that is made by the petitioner is as
per the sanctioned plan or not, the presence of the impleaded
applicant is not necessary. This aspect was not appreciated by
the Court. He relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this
Court in the case of Mohammed Rafiq Vs. The
Commissioner, Hubli Dharwad Municipal Corporation ,
arising out of W.A.No.100071/2018 dated 28.11.2018 . He
has relied on paragraph No.17 which reads as follows:
“17. It has to be borne in mind that in an
appeal under Section 321 of the Act, the
right, title and interest of respondent No.4
vis-à-vis his property would not be
considered. The correctness of the statutory
power exercised by the respondent
Corporation and in order to ascertain as to
whether there is any infraction of the said
Section by the appellant herein or the
person who is putting up the construction or
reconstruction is the subject matter of the
appeal. The grievance that respondent No.4
may have against the appellant herein vis-à-
vis his property rights is not the subject of
the appeal before the District Court.
Therefore, the impleadment of respondent
No.4 in the appeal is unwarranted.”
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:37044
WP No. 9714 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010220272026
5. Relying on this, it is submitted that the
impleadment of the complainant before the Municipality is not
necessary in the pending proceedings. The trial Court has failed
to consider all these facts and has allowed the I.A and the order
impugned needs to be set aside.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent/implead applicant submits that, after the order
passed in Mohammed Rafiq referred supra, the very same
learned Judge who was heading the Bench has passed another
order in K.S Jagadish Reddy Vs. Smt. Susheela and
another arising out of W.A.No.460/2020 C/w 482/2020
and 484/2020 dated 12.10.2020 . In that, relying on a
Supreme Court Judgment, the Court has held that the
complainant can be treated as an intervenor. He relied on
paragraph Nos.12, 13 and 14 which read as follows:
“12. We have perused the judgments of the
Coordinate Bench of this Court, which have
been referred to by the respective parties.
While in the case of Mohammed Rafiq
(supra), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
did not permit impleadment and the
application seeking impleadment was
dismissed by allowing the appeal, in the
case of Shantesh Gureddi another Co-
ordinate Bench permitted the impleadment.
However, Sri Shantesh Gureedi, carried the
matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:37044
WP No. 9714 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010220272026
and the Hon’ble Supreme Court by its order
dated 05/09/2019 modified the order of
impleadment and permitted the impleading
parties to participate in the proceedings
before the Tribunal as interveners.
13. In the said circumstances, despite there
being contrary judgments passed by the two
Division Benches of this Court referred to
supra, there being an order of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court permitting such parties, who
are complainants, to participate in the
proceedings before the Tribunal as
interveners, we think it just and proper to
follow the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court
dated 05/09/2019 in the case of Shantesh
Gureddi, in SLP.Nos.24083-87/2017,
without entering into the correctness or
otherwise of the judgments in the aforesaid
cases.
14. In the circumstances, the impugned
orders of the learned Single Judge is
modified to the extent of permitting first
respondent herein to participate in the
appellate proceedings initiated before the
Tribunal as an intervener, in each of the
three appeals and not as a party respondent.
The appeals are allowed in part in the
aforesaid terms.”
7. He relied on another judgment of the learned single
Judge of this Court in the case of Shivaprasad Navada Vs.
Leonard Fernandes and others arising out of
W.P.No.18150/2018 . He relied on paragraph No.6 which
reads as follows:
“6. It is not in dispute that the proceedings
before the Tribunal have emanated
pursuant to notices issued by the BBMP
under Section 321 of the KMC Act and such
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:37044
WP No. 9714 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010220272026
notices were issued against the owner of
the property pursuant to a complaint
registered by the petitioner. This fact not
being in dispute, the Tribunal ought to
have permitted the petitioner to come on
record as a party respondent, particularly,
in the light of the observations made by
several Co-ordinate benches of this Court
(supra), that the defence of the BBMP
before the Tribunal is sometimes doubtful
and it is the complainant who should be
heard in the matter.”
8. It is submitted that in the above case, the Court
has held that the complainant is a proper and necessary party
and he can be impleaded in the proceedings.
9. Having heard the learned counsels on either side,
perused the material on record. There is no doubt that the two
Division Benches have taken different views. In
W.A.No.100071/2018 referred supra, the Court held that the
complainant is not a proper and necessary party. Later, the
Division Bench, relying on the Supreme Court judgment, held
that he can be impleaded as an intervener. There is no dispute
that the proceedings were initiated by the Municipality basing
on the complaint lodged by the proposed party. Though the
statutory proceedings were ultimately issued by the Municipal
Authority, the factual foundation for such action emanated from
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:37044
WP No. 9714 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010220272026
the complaint submitted by the proposed party. The Municipal
Authority has to justify its action independently in accordance
with law. Equally, it cannot be said that the complainant is a
complete stranger to the proceedings. If the challenge to the
municipal action of the authority by the petitioner is in his
favour, the complaint made by the impleading applicant would
be ineffective, and the very purpose for which he invoked the
statutory mechanism would stand frustrated. If the proposed
party is not seeking to enlarge the scope of the suit or to
introduce any independent cause of action, his participation is
confined to supporting the validity of the proceedings initiated
on the basis of his complaint. Such participation would assist
the Court in arriving at a just conclusion. The distinction
between a proper and unnecessary party is no more
res-
integra . Even if an order can technically be passed in the
absence of the complainant, his presence would facilitate
effective adjudication of the controversy and obviate future
litigation. Therefore, he answers the definition of a Proper
Party. The trial Court has considered this aspect, exercised the
jurisdiction vested in it, and allowed an application filed under
Order I Rule 10(2) CPC.
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:37044
WP No. 9714 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010220272026
10. The Division Bench in W.A.No.460/2020 C/w
482/2020 and 484/2020 , referred supra, considering the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, has held that he can be
impleaded as an intervener. Learned counsel for
respondent/impleading applicant submits that the Coordinate
Bench of this Court in W.P.No.18150/2018 referred supra, has
held that he can be impleaded as a respondent to the suit. This
Court is not able to appreciate the said submission made by the
petitioner, and in the considered opinion of the Court, the
petitioner can be impleaded in the suit as an intervener. As far
as the order passed by the Court is concerned, there is no
jurisdictional error or material irregularity warranting
interference by this Court exercising the supervisory jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. At the same
time, the impleadment of the applicant will not confer upon him
a status higher than an intervener. His participation in the
proceedings is only for the limited purpose of supporting the
municipal proceedings and shall not be permitted to travel
beyond the scope of the controversies involved in the suit or to
introduce issues alien thereto. Accordingly, this Court is passing
the following:
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:37044
WP No. 9714 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010220272026
ORDER
i. This Court do not find any reasons to
interfere with the order passed by the trial
Court.
ii. It is clarified that the impleading respondent
shall participate in the proceedings only as
an intervener/proper party in support of the
municipal proceedings impugned in the suit
and shall not be entitled to enlarge the scope
of the litigation or to claim any independent
relief.
iii. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of .
iv. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
PKN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4