MUSHTAQ AHMED vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11593
WP No. 200731 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030014062025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA



KALABURAGI BENCH

TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

WRIT PETITION NO.200731 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)


BETWEEN:

SRI MUSHTAQ AHMED S/O NAZIMUDDIN BANGI,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK,
R/O. GULAM HUSSAIN GALLI,
VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S. S. MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYPUR-586 101.

2. SRI. SASHIDHAR J. MADYAL
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: TAHASILDAR AT
HUBLI,
R/O. MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA, HUBLI-590001.

3. SRI. G. S. RAJAPUR,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
OCC: SHIRASTEDAR AT BABALESHWAR,
R/O. NEAR BUS STAND, BABALESHWAR-586101.

4. SRI. BASAVARAJ BHADRANNAVAR,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: VILLAGE
ACCOUNTANT,
R/O. DC OFFICE, DARBAR HALL, NEAR BUS STAND,
VIJAYPUR-586101.










Digitally signed
by KHAJAAMEEN
MALAGHAN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11593
WP No. 200731 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030014062025


5. SRI. R. P. BHIDE,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: EX. DISTRICT
GOVERNMENT PLEADER, VIJAYPUR AND ADVOCATE,
R/O. NEAR RAM MANDIR ROAD, VIJAYPUR-586101.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
V/O DTD.02.06.2025 NOTICE TO R1 TO R4 DISPENSED WITH)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A) ISSUE A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTIONS QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.12.2024 PASSED BY THE
HON’BLE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, VIJAYAPUR
ON IA NO. I FILED BY THE RESPONDENT -5 / DEFENDANT-5
UNDER ORDER-I RULE 10(2) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC IN OS
NO. 716/2021VIDE ANNEXURE-F. B) PASS SUCH OTHER
ORDER OR DIRECTIONS AS DEEM FIT UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11593
WP No. 200731 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030014062025


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed on
I.A.No.I dated 17.12.2024 in O.S.No.716/2021 by the II
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, at Vijayapura.

2. The brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ
petition are as follows:-

The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and
mandatory injunction against the respondents. In the said
suit, the respondent No.5 / defendant No.5 has filed an
application in I.A.No.I praying to strike-out the name of
the respondent No.5 / defendant No.5, as he has been
improperly joined as defendant No.5 in the suit. In support
of an application filed an affidavit stating that the
respondent No.5 was in the post of District Government
Pleader, the Tahasildar has sought the opinion of the
respondent No.5 / defendant No.5 therein regarding the

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11593
WP No. 200731 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030014062025


property bearing Survey No.45/1 of Vijayapura on the
strength of the judgment and decree passed in the earlier
suit and findings recorded therein. The respondent No.5
herein has given a legal opinion to the Tahasildar. Based
on the opinion furnished by the respondent No.5, the
Tahasildar has passed an order. The respondent No.5 is
not responsible for the act, since, the act of the
government officials was always in accordance with law.
Hence, prays to strike-out his name from the array of the
parties.

3. The said application was opposed by the
petitioner / plaintiff by filing objections contending that the
defendant No.5 has done act in a personal capacity
misusing his official post. Hence, he is the proper and
necessary party and he has been rightly arrayed as
defendant No.5 in the suit. Hence, on these grounds he
prays to dismiss the application.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11593
WP No. 200731 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030014062025


4. The Trial Court after hearing the learned
counsel for the parties allowed the application vide order
dated 17.12.2024.

5. The petitioner aggrieved by the order on
I.A.No.I filed this writ petition.

6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the respondent No.5 has misused his official position
as a District Government Pleader. Based on the opinion
submitted by the respondent No.5, the Tahasildar has
acted and passed an order for mutation. Hence, the Trial
Court committed an error in passing an impugned order.
He submits that the petitioner has rightly made the
respondent No.5 as a party in the suit. He also submits
that the petitioner is the master of his case. He can make
anybody as a party to the suit. Hence, on these grounds
he prays to allow the writ petition.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11593
WP No. 200731 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030014062025


Per contra
8. , learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.5 supported the impugned order. He
submits that the respondent No.5 in the capacity as a
District Government Pleader based on the judgment and
decree has given an opinion to the Tahasildar to pass an
order of mutation. He submits that there is no negligence
on the part of respondent No.5 in giving an opinion and
the opinion is based on the records. The petitioner cannot
sue who submitted the opinion as a District Government
Pleader. Hence, the Trial Court was justified in passing the
impugned order. Hence, on these grounds he prays to
dismiss the writ petition.

9. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

10. It is an undisputed fact that the judgment was
passed in O.S.No.348/2002 and in R.A.No.74/2014. The
opinion was sought from the respondent No.5 who was the
then District Government Pleader. On the basis of the
judgment passed in O.S.No.348/2002 and in

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11593
WP No. 200731 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030014062025


R.A.No.74/2014 has given an opinion to the Tahasildar to
effect a mutation complying the judgment and decree
passed in O.S.No.348/2002. Based on the opinion
submitted by the respondent No.5, the Tahasildar has
passed an order deleting the name of petitioner's father
and uncle of the petitioner. The respondent No.5 has
issued a legal opinion in the capacity as a District
Government Pleader and not in an official capacity and not
in an individual capacity. He cannot be held to be
responsible for giving an opinion. The respondent No.5
based on the records, he has given an opinion. Hence, he
is neither necessary nor a proper party. The petitioner has
wrongly arrayed him as the respondent No.5. The Trial
Court considering the entire material on record has rightly
passed an impugned order. Hence, I do not find any
grounds to interfere with the impugned order.

11. Accordingly, I declined to interfere with the
impugned order. Hence, I proceed to pass the following
order:-

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11593
WP No. 200731 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030014062025


O R D E R

dismissed
The writ petition is .

Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE


KJJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8
CT:PK