Sri Gangadhara D R v. Sri. Dr Mahendra

((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:42753( WP(No.(23135(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010505502026( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

THDATED(THIS(THE(12 (DAY(OF(AUGUST,(2026(

BEFORE(

THE(HON'BLE(SMT.(JUSTICE(LALITHA(KANNEGANTI(

WRIT(PETITION(NO.(23135(OF(2026((GM-CPC)(

BETWEEN:((

, SRI,GANGADHARA,D,R, AGED,ABOUT,43,YEARS,,

S/O.,RAMALINGIAH, R/AT,NO.,1715,,, D,GROUP,LAYOUT,,

SRIGANDADA,KAVALU,, VISHWA,NEEDAM,POST,,, BENGALURU-560,091,

…PETITIONER,

(BY,SRI.,AVINASH,P.,ADVOCATE),

Digitallytisigned by0SUVARNA0T AND:( Location: HIGH0COURT ( OF KARNATAKA 1., SRI.,DR,MAHENDRA, AGED,ABOUT,47,YEARS,, S/O.,RAMALINGAIAH,, RESIDING,AT,, DASAVARA,VILLAGE,, KANVA,POST,,MAKALLI,ROAD,, MALUR,HOBLI,,, CHANNAPATNA,TALUK,, RAMANAGAR,DISTRICT, ,

2., SMT.,PADMAVATHI,S,P, AGED,ABOUT,79,YEARS, ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:42753( WP(No.(23135(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010505502026( ( ( W/O,SK,PRASANNA,KUMAR,, THR/AT,NO.2647,,37 ,,'A',CROSS,, TH TH28 ,,MAIN,ROAD,,9 ,,BLOCK,, JAYANAGAR,,BENGALURU-560069., ,

3., SRI.,S.K.,KRISHNAPRASAD, AGED,52,YEARS,, S/O,S,K,PRASANNA,KUMAR,, THR/AT,NO.2647,,37 ,,'A',CROSS,, TH TH28 ,,MAIN,ROAD,,9 ,,BLOCK,, JAYANAGAR,,BENGALURU-560069., ,

4., THE,KARNATAKA,STATE,, D,GROUP,EMPLOYEES,CENTRAL,, ASSOCIATION,BANGALORE, DULY,REP,BY,ITS, PRESIDENT,MR.,B,M,NATARAJ,, GENERAL,SECRETARY, SRI.,GOVINDA,RAJ,, M,S,BUILDING,, AMBEDKAR,VEEDHI,, BENGALURU,-,560,001., ,

5., SRI.,K.,PUTTARAJU, AGED,76,YEARS,, S/O.,LATE,KARAGAPPA,, RESIDING,AT,NO.40,, HOSABEEDHI,,YELAHANKA,, BENGALURU,-,560,064., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,B.R.,DEEPAK,,ADVOCATE,FOR,C/R2), , THIS, WP, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLE, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO, QUASHING, THE, ORDER, DATED, 02.07.2026,, VIDE, ANNEXURE, A,, PASSED, BY, THE, HON'BLE, XIX, ADDITIONAL, CITY, CIVIL, AND, SESSION,JUDGE,AT,BENGALURU,,IN,O.S.,NO.,6856/2021,, AS, IT, IS, ILLEGAL,, ARBITRARY, AND, UNSUSTAINABLE, IN, THE,LAW.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

ORAL ORDER

Aggrieved by the order dated 02.07.2026 passed in I.A.No.10 in O.S.No.6856/2021 by the XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, the petitioner/impleading applicant is before this Court.

¶2The respondent No.1, who is the plaintiff, filed O.S.No.6856/2021 seeking injunction and other consequential reliefs. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 entered appearance and filed their written statement, along with a counterclaim seeking declaration of title and other consequential reliefs. The petitioner herein filed I.A.No.10 under Order I Rule 10(2), read with Section 151 of the CPC, to implead him as plaintiff No.2 in the suit. It is the case of the impleading applicant that the plaintiff executed a Gift Deed dated 23.08.2023 in his favor; accordingly, he has filed this application to implead him as plaintiff No. 2. That application was rejected by the trial Court.

¶3The trial court rejected the application mainly on the ground that, although the Gift Deed was executed in the year 2023, it was not brought to the notice of the trial Court, till this application was filed, amounting to suppression of material facts, and such an application cannot be allowed.

¶4Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ impleading applicant submits that if this application is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the defendants. It is submitted that there is no intention on the part of the petitioner to protract the proceedings. In fact, the petitioner would continue from where the proceedings stand today and would not seek unnecessary adjournments. It is submitted that the trial Court, without considering the Gift Deed, has passed the impugned order.

¶5Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/ defendant No.1 submits that defendant No.1 is about 82 years old and there are other order in the writ petition to dispose of the matter expeditiously. It is submitted that the trial Court rightly considered the suppression of facts and the fact that allowing this application and starting the proceedings afresh

would lead to considerable delay. All these aspects were considered by the trial Court and there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court.

¶6Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the entire material on record. The suit is filed for injunction and other consequential reliefs. The defendants have filed a counterclaim and sought for declaration. The case is now posted for the evidence of PW.1, and if the petitioner is impleaded as plaintiff No.2, the evidence of plaintiff No.2 must commence. The trial Court has observed suppression of facts and other matters. No doubt, there is suppression of facts by the plaintiff No.1. At the same time, this Court is conscious of the substantial interest of the petitioner in the suit schedule property, as the property is gifted in his favor. In those circumstances, balancing the interests of the parties, this Court is passing the following order: ORDER i. The order dated 02.07.2026 passed in I.A.No.10 in O.S.No.6856/2021 by the XIX Additional City

Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, is set aside. ii. Consequently, I.A.No.10 is allowed. iii. The petitioner shall commence the case from the stage of his evidence as PW.2 and shall not file any other applications to reopen the case and the issues were already addressed and considered. iv. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. v. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.

SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52