LAXMIBAI vs PUTALABAI AND ORS

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11158
WP No. 203883 of 2024

CNR: KAHC030127572024





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH


TH
DATED THIS THE 8 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO

WRIT PETITION NO.203883 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)


BETWEEN:

LAXMIBAI
W/O BHAGAPPA TALAWAR,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND
HOUSEHOLD, R/O. NEAR LAXMI TEMPLE,
HANCHINAL, NOW AT GABASAVALAGI,
TQ. SINDAGI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA.
…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SUDHEER KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. PUTALABAI
W/O MALLAPPA TALAWAR,
AGE: 63 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. HANCHINAL, TQ. SINDAGI,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 128.

2. GALIB
S/O MALLAPPA TALAWAR,
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HANCHINAL,
TQ. SINDAGI,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 128.











Digitally signed
by
SHIVALEELA
D UDAGI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11158
WP No. 203883 of 2024

CNR: KAHC030127572024




3. SOMANATH
S/O IRANA PATTAR @ HANCHINAL,
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: GOLD SMITH AND AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HANCHINAL,
TQ. SINDAGI-586 128.

4. ANAND
S/O IRANNA PATTAR @ HANCHINAL,
AGE: 34 YEARS,
OCC: GOLD SMITH @ BUSINESS,
R/O. ASHOK CHOUK, SINDAGI,
TQ. SINDAGI-506 128.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. BAPUGOUDA SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4;
R1 & R2-SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 03-09-2024 IN OS NO.291/2021 ON I.A NO. VII
PASSED BY ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SINDAGI AS PER
ANNEUXRE-E AND ALLOW THE I.A NO. VII FILED U/O 1 RULE
10(2) OF CPC AND ETC.

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


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11158
WP No. 203883 of 2024

CNR: KAHC030127572024



ORAL ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned
order dated 3.9.2024 in O.S.No.291/2021 on
I.A.No.VII passed by Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC,
Sindagi as per Annexure-E and allow the I.A.No.VII
filed u/o 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC, in ends of justice.

b) Issue any writ order or direction as this Hon’ble
Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case, in
the ends of justice.


2. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein have filed O.S.
No.291/2021 for the relief of prescriptive easementary right of
way and the easement of necessity to approach their land
bearing Sy. No. 48/1, measuring 6 acres 6 guntas, Hanchinal
village, through the suit way shown by the letter “PQ” in the
plaint hand sketch. The suit is opposed by a written statement
filed by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who were Defendant Nos. 1
and 2 before the Trial Court.


3. Based on the plaint averments and the written
statement filed, the Trial Court framed issues, and the Plaintiffs’
evidence commenced. At that stage, the Petitioner sought to

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11158
WP No. 203883 of 2024

CNR: KAHC030127572024



file an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) r/w Sec. 151 of the
CPC to come on record as Plaintiff No. 3 in the suit filed by
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein.


4. The application filed by the Petitioner herein was
opposed by Respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein. The Trial Court,
having considered the contents of the application as well as the
objections raised by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who are
Defendants in the Trial Court, has dismissed the Petitioner's
application. It is this order, rejecting the impleading
application, that is impugned in the present proceedings.


5. Learned counsel Sri. Sudheer Kulkarni, appearing
on behalf of the Petitioner, submits that the Trial Court ought to
have allowed the impleading application, as the Petitioner-
Applicant is on the same footing as the Plaintiffs in
O.S.No.291/2021. In other words, it is the submission of the
learned counsel that allowing the Petitioner-Applicant to come
on record as additional Plaintiff No.3, having common interest
and right, would enable the Trial Court to adjudicate the
dispute between the parties and the same would not in any way

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11158
WP No. 203883 of 2024

CNR: KAHC030127572024



cause prejudice to the rights of Respondents Nos.3 and 4 -
Defendants in the original suit. Accordingly, learned counsel
would seek to have this petition allowed and the Trial Court’s
order set aside.


6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
Respondent Nos.3 and 4 – Defendants would submit that the
applicant never mentioned her interest in the schedule way and
has not assigned any cogent reasons to implead herself to
come on record as Plaintiff No.3. It is argued by the learned
counsel that the evidence of the Plaintiff has commenced on
13.08.2021 and concluded on 27.09.2023, and it is at that
stage the present application for impleadment is filed without
there being any foundational facts pleaded.


7. It is further submitted that the cause of action that
gave rise to the suit by the Plaintiffs and the present applicant,
if any, would be different; therefore, the application for
impleadment cannot be permitted, and the impleading
applicant cannot be allowed to come on record as an additional

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11158
WP No. 203883 of 2024

CNR: KAHC030127572024



Plaintiff. With the said submission, the learned counsel would
seek dismissal of the petition.


8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondents and perused
the documents.


9. The application filed by the Petitioner herein under
Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC is a provision which enables the Court
to allow an interested person to come on record as either
Plaintiff or the Defendant, or 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.


10. In the present case, the suit filed by the
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, who are the Plaintiffs, is for
an easementary right and cause of action as indicated in the
suit filed by the Plaintiffs, which arose on 15.06.2021. The
application filed by the Petitioner herein is as bald as it can be
and gives no indication of any cause of action in her favour to

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11158
WP No. 203883 of 2024

CNR: KAHC030127572024



be impleaded as an additional Plaintiff in the suit filed by the
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.


11. The Trial Court, having regard to the applications
filed and the contentions raised by the parties, has specifically
observed as under:
“6. Point No.1 : This is the suit filed by the plaintiff
against the defendant for the relief of right of easmentary
to use the schedule ABQP point way mentioned in the
annexed with plaint in order to pass and repass the
property of the plaintiff No.1 and 2. Admittedly both the
plaintiffs have commenced their evidence on 13.08.2021
concluded by on 27.09.2022. Now the case is set for
further evidence of the plaintiff. At this stage the
applicant has filed this application and contended that,
her interest is also involved in the instant case. Even it is
presumed that, the applicant is the owner and possession
of property bearing Sy.No.48/1 measuring 6 acres which
situated in western side of schedule road, but cause of
action for applicant against the defendant to cause of
action for will be different comparing to cause of action
for plaintiff No.1 and 2. Even it is presume that, the
defendant have obstructed the applicant use the schedule
road, she can file another suit for the appropriate relief.
The cause of action to file the instant suit as per the plaint
by plaintiff arose on 15.06.2021, but applicant utterly
failed establish that, cause of action by plaintiff holds
good for the applicant also. Hence, I answer point No.1 in
the negative.”



12. The Trial Court has categorically observed that the
cause of action for the applicant to come on record is different
from the cause of action that arose in favour of the Plaintiff

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11158
WP No. 203883 of 2024

CNR: KAHC030127572024



Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit filed. If the impleading applicant has
any objection/obstruction in relation to the easementary rights
possessed by her, she may file another suit seeking appropriate
relief based on the cause of action that has arisen in her
favour. The Trial Court’s reasoning in the impugned order is
fully justified in the facts and circumstances of the present
case. The order passed by the Trial Court contains no error or
illegality and does not call for interference by this Court. Hence,
this Court proceeded to pass the following:

ORDER
The Writ Petition is hereby rejected .


Sd/-
(SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO)
JUDGE



SDU
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 26
CT: AK