ANANDADEVANAHALI KOTRAGOUDA S/O BASAVANAGOUDA vs BAVI VIJAYANANDA S/O LINGAPPA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15413
WP No. 106830 of 2024

CNR: KAHC020186372024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI

WRIT PETITION NO.106830 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

ANANDADEVANAHALI KOTRAGOUDA
S/O. BASAVANAGOUDA,
AGE: 65 YEARS,

2. ANANDADEVANAHALI GURUBASAVANAGOUDA
S/O. BASAVANAGOUDA,
AGE: 63 YEARS,
R/O. GURU TAILORS,
HAMPASAGRA ROAD,
HUVINAHADAGALI.

3. ANANDADEVANAHALI VIRUPAKSHAGOUDA
S/O. BASAVANAGOUDA,
AGE: 60 YEARS.

4. ANANDADEVANAHALI SHEKHARGOUDA
S/O. BASAVANAGOUDA,
AGE: 56 YEARS.

5. ANANDADEVANAHALI DODD BASAVANAGOUDA
S/O. BASAVANAGOUDA,
AGE: 52 YEARS.

6. ANANDADEVANAHALI SHANMUKHANAGOUDA
S/O. BASAVANAGOUDA,
AGE: 48 YEARS.

7. ANANDADEVANAHALI BULLANAGOUDA
S/O. BASAVANAGOUDA,
AGE: 38 YEARS,
PETITIONER NOS.1, 3 TO 7 ARE

Digitally signed
by BHARATHI
H M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date:
2026.11.04
11:35:04
+0530

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15413
WP No. 106830 of 2024

CNR: KAHC020186372024

R/O. MOREGERI VILLAGE,
TQ: H.B.HALLI, DIST: BELLARY-583212.

8.
GOUDRA BASAMMA W/O. KOTRGOUDA
AGE: 41 YEARS, R/O. HAGARIGAJAPURA,
TQ: HARAPANAHALLI,
DIST. DEVANAGERE-583131.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.N.P.VIVEKMEHTA, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1. BAVI VIJAYANANDA S/O. LINGAPPA
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. MOREGERI VILLAGE,
R/O. H.B.HALLI,
DIST: BELLARY-583212.

2. THE PDO GRAMA PANCHAYATH MORIGERI
IN MORIGERI VILLAGE,
TQ: H.B.HALLI, DIST: VIJAYANAGARA-583212.

3.
THE E.O. TALUK PANCHAYATH
TQ: H.B.HALLI, DIST: VIJAYANAGARA-583212.
…RESPONDENT
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS-SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED. 02-09-2024 PASSED ON
I.A. NO.11 BY THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. AT
HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI IN O.S. NO.143/2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-E
AND DISMISS THE I.A. NO.11 BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION;
CALL FOR THE RECORDS; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15413
WP No. 106830 of 2024

CNR: KAHC020186372024

ORAL ORDER
The present petition is filed by the petitioners assailing the
order dated 02.09.2024 passed on I.A.No.XI in
O.S.No.143/2013 by the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC,
1
Hagaribommanahalli , wherein the Trial Court allowed the
impleading application filed by the plaintiff.

2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the
parties will be referred to as per their respective rankings
before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts in a nutshell leading to the present
petition are that the plaintiff instituted O.S.No.143/2013
seeking a declaration and permanent injunction in respect to
the suit property. Upon service of summons, the defendants
entered appearance and filed their objections, denying the
contentions raised by the plaintiff. Meanwhile, the plaintiff filed
I.A.No.XI under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the
2
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , seeking to implead the PDO of
Morageri Gram Panchayath and the Executive Officer of Taluka
Panchayath, H.B.Halli, as defendant Nos.9 and 10, respectively.

1

Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’
2
Hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15413
WP No. 106830 of 2024

CNR: KAHC020186372024

The defendants filed their objections to the said application.
After hearing both sides, the Trial Court, vide order dated
02.09.2024, allowed I.A.No.XI.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners
have filed the present petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that
since the suit is one for declaration and permanent injunction
and no relief has been sought against the proposed defendants,
they are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit.
Therefore, their impleadment is not necessary.

6. Though notice was issued to the respondents and duly
served upon them, they remained absent and unrepresented.

7. Upon perusing the impugned order and the material
placed before the Court, it is seen that the plaintiff has
contended in paragraph No.3 of the plaint that the suit
properties are shown as “Gramanath” in the ROR documents.
The defendants, in paragraph No.11(f) of their written
statement, have contended that the concerned Revenue
Department is a proper and necessary party to the suit. Since

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15413
WP No. 106830 of 2024

CNR: KAHC020186372024

no issue was framed in consonance with the contention raised
by the defendants with regard to the non-joinder of necessary
parties, the defendants preferred a writ petition seeking
framing of an issue as to whether the suit is bad for non-
joinder of necessary parties in W.P.No.111055/2019. The said
writ petition came to be allowed on 18.07.2022, pursuant to
which an additional issue was framed, which reads as follows:
“ Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of
necessary parties ”

8. It is in this context the plaintiff files an application
under Order I Rule 10 seeking impleadment of defendant Nos.9
and 10.

9. Though the application for impleadment was served
upon the proposed defendants No.9 and 10, they did not
appear and contest the matter. However, the present
petitioners filed their objections to the said application. In this
regard, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Ramesh
Hiranand Kundanmal vs Municipal Corporation of Greater

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15413
WP No. 106830 of 2024

CNR: KAHC020186372024

3
Bombay and Others , has held at paragraph Nos.5 and 6, as
follows:
“5. It was argued that the Court cannot direct
addition of parties against the wishes of the plaintiff who
cannot be compelled to proceed against a person against
whom he does not claim any relief. Plaintiff is no doubt
dominus litis and is not bound to sue every possible
adverse claimant in the same suit. He may choose to
implead only those persons as defendants against whom
he wishes to proceed though under Order I Rule 3, to
avoid multiplicity of suit and needless expenses, all
persons against whom the right to relief is alleged to
exist may be joined as defendants. However, the Court
may at any stage of the suit direct addition of parties. A
party can be joined as defendant even though the
plaintiff does not think that he has any cause of action
against him. Rule 10 specifically provides that it is open
to the Court to add at any stage of the suit a necessary
party or a person whose presence before the Court may
be necessary in order to enable the Court to effectually
and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the
questions involved in the suit.
6. Sub-rule(2) of Rule 10 gives a wide discretion to
the Court to meet every case of defect of parties and is
not affected by the inaction of the plaintiff to bring the
necessary parties on record. The question of
impleadment of a party has to be decided on the touch
stone of Order I Rule 10 which provides that only a
necessary or a proper party may be added. A necessary
party is one without whom no order can be made
effectively. A proper party is one in whose absence an
effective order can be made but whose presence is
necessary for a complete and final decision on the
question involved in the proceeding. The addition of
parties is generally not a question of initial jurisdiction of
the Court but of a judicial discretion which has to be
exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a
particular case.”

3
(1992) 2 SCC 524

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15413
WP No. 106830 of 2024

CNR: KAHC020186372024

10. Having regard to the judgment referred to
hereinabove and considering the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioners, the Trial Court found it
necessary to allow the application for impleading defendant
Nos.9 and 10.

11. Upon perusing the impugned order, which has been
passed by referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court
in Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal (supra), I do not find any
infirmity in the impugned order. Since an issue regarding the
non-joinder of necessary parties has been framed, the plaintiff,
being dominus litis , is at liberty to implead defendant Nos.9 and
10 in order to effectively adjudicate and prove the said issue.
Therefore, the Trial Court has properly exercised its discretion
in allowing the application for impleadment and I do not find
any infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by
this Court.

12. With the aforementioned observations, the writ
petition stands dismissed.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15413
WP No. 106830 of 2024

CNR: KAHC020186372024

13. In view of the dismissal of the petition, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, stand dismissed.

Sd/-
(HEMA KULKARNI)
JUDGE

PMP
CT:VH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35