Karnataka High Court
Sri. Thejas N K vs Sri. Nagabhushana. S. P on 20 January, 2026
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:2896
WP No. 18932 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.18932 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. THEJAS N.K.
S/O. SRI KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT NO.28, BASAVESHWARA NILAYA,
NIMBEKAIPURA,
NEAR OVER HEAD BANK,
K.R. PURAM,
BENGALURU-560 049.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BHADRAVADI SIDDESWARA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
GEETHA P G 1. SRI. NAGABHUSHANA S.P.
Location: S/O. SRI B. PUTTALINGAIAH,
HIGH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA R/AT NO.28/1, SANTHRUPTI,
2ND CROSS, 1ST MAIN,
MUTHURAYASWAMY LAYOUT,
DODDA BOMMASANDRA,
VIDYARANYAPURA,
BENGALURU-560 097.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K. ABHINAV ANAND, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:2896
WP No. 18932 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 10.06.2024 PASSED BY THE XLII ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN O.S.NO.1457/2023
VIDE ANNEXURE-'A' ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER UNDER ORDER-1 RULE-10(2) OF THE CPC VIDE
ANNEXURE-'D', ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition by the defendant in OS No.1457/2023 is directed against the impugned order dated 10.06.2024 whereby the application-I.A.No.3 filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead Ms. Disha.A as additional defendant No.2 was rejected by the trial Court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. -3-
NC: 2026:KHC:2896 WP No. 18932 of 2024 HC-KAR
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner/defendant seeking the following reliefs:
"(a) directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.18,66,600/- (Rupees eighteen lakhs sixty-six thousand and six hundred only) along with court costs and future interest at 36% per annum from the date of filing of this suit;
(b) pass such other order or orders as deemed fit to pass under the facts and circumstance of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."
4. The said suit having been contested by the petitioner/defendant, during the pendency of the suit, after settlement of issues, the petitioner filed the instant application seeking to implead the aforesaid Disha as additional defendant no.2 to the suit. The said application was opposed by the respondent/plaintiff and the same culminated in the impugned order passed by the trial court rejecting I.A.No.3 as hereunder:
"ORDER ON I.A.NO.III I.A.No.III is filed by the defendant under Order I Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 of C.P.C. to implead the -4- NC: 2026:KHC:2896 WP No. 18932 of 2024 HC-KAR proposed defendant. It is accompanied by an affidavit. Objection is filed by the plaintiff.
2. In the affidavit accompanying the application, the defendant stated that the plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of money. The plaintiff is a stranger and the proposed defendant No.2 is his friend. On 6.3.2020, the proposed defendant and her mother Kokila requested that they have to procure an amount of Rs.9 lakh from the plaintiff and they were facing server related issues in the bank and they were unable to receive the said amount and requested him to give the bank account details and informed him that their friend by name Nagabhushan i.e., the plaintiff would transfer Rs.9 lakh and in turn, he should transfer the same to the proposed defendant's account. Based on the relationship with the proposed defendant, he received the said amount from the plaintiff and on the next day i.e., on 7.3.2020 he has sent the amount to the proposed defendant's Karnataka Bank account bearing No.1232500101563901 through RTGS from the State Bank of India account No.64185216445. The same is evident from the bank entries. The plaintiff and the defendant do not have any transaction and the plaintiff has got transaction with the proposed defendant. Hence, the proposed defendant is necessary party to the suit. Hence, prays to implead the proposed defendant.
3. In the objection, apart from usual denial of the averments mentioned in the affidavit accompanying the application, the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff has paid -5- NC: 2026:KHC:2896 WP No. 18932 of 2024 HC-KAR Rs.9 lakh to the defendant through bank transfer and it is disclosed in the bank account extract. The proposed defendant is a stranger to the plaintiff and the plaintiff does not have any transaction with the proposed defendant. It is only the defendant who is liable to discharge the loan and interest to the plaintiff. Further states, the proposed defendant is neither necessary nor proper party to the suit. Hence, prayed for rejection of the application.
4. The following points arise for my determination:
1) Whether the proposed defendant
is necessary or proper party to the
suit?
2) What order ?
5. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff and the counsel for the defendant. My findings to the above points are as hereunder :
Point No.1 : In the negative.
Point No.2 : As per the final order for the
following :
REASONS
6. Point No.1 : - The defendant contends, the proposed defendant is necessary party to the suit, as under
her instructions, he had received Rs.9 lakh from the plaintiff due to problem with the server in the bank of the proposed defendant and subsequently, transferred the amount to the -6- NC: 2026:KHC:2896 WP No. 18932 of 2024 HC-KAR proposed defendant. Hence, prayed to implead the proposed defendant.
7. The defendant counsel argued that, the proposed defendant is necessary party to the suit and it is also reflected in para No.3 of the plaint. Hence, prays for allowing the application. Per contra the plaintiff's counsel submitted, the defendant in the written statement has admitted having received the amount from the plaintiff. It establishes that the proposed defendant is neither necessary nor proper party to the suit. Hence, prayed for rejection of the application.
8. Perused the records. The suit is filed for recovery of money. The plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendant seeking recovery of money of Rs.18,66,600/- by contending that the defendant has received hand loan of Rs.10 lakh from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same with interest and subsequently failed to repay the loan amount. The defendant contends, he has received the amount on behalf of the proposed defendant and transferred the amount to the proposed defendant. Hence, the defendant intends to implead the proposed defendant.
9. Necessary party is one in whose absence the Court cannot pass an effective decree at all. Proper party is one, whose presence before the Court is necessary to ensure that all matter in dispute are effectively or completely determined. Here in this case, the defendant intends to implead the proposed defendant on the ground that the -7- NC: 2026:KHC:2896 WP No. 18932 of 2024 HC-KAR plaintiff had entered into monetary transaction with the proposed defendant and not with the defendant.
10. Here this Court views that, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to prove his case. The defendant can establish his defence by cross-examining the plaintiff. When the plaintiff specifically pleads that the transaction was between himself and the defendant and the relief is sought only against the defendant and not against the proposed defendant, this Court views that the proposed defendant is neither necessary nor proper party to the suit. As such, the plaintiff cannot be directed to implead the proposed defendant. Hence, no grounds made out to allow the application. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the negative.
11. Point No.2 : - Based on the finding on Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER I.A.No.III filed by the defendant under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of C.P.C. is hereby rejected on cost of Rs.500/-.
For cross-examination of P.W-1, call on 9/7."
5. It is well settled that ordinarily, the plaintiff is a Dominus litis to the suit and having regard to the specific averments made in the plaint, in which the respondent/plaintiff seeks to put forth claims -8- NC: 2026:KHC:2896 WP No. 18932 of 2024 HC-KAR and seeks relief only as against the petitioner/defendant and not anyone else, the trial court was fully justified in coming to the correct conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the proposed defendant no.2 was neither a proper nor necessary party to the suit.
6. In the recent judgment in Nak Engineering Company Private Limited vs. Tarun Keshrichand Shah and Others [2026 INSC 8] relating to impleadment of parties, the Apex Court held as under:
"32. The above discussion takes us to another aspect of the matter as to whether the appellant is a necessary or a proper party to be impleaded. The governing principles and law in this regard are well-settled.
33. The fundamental distinction between a "necessary party" and a "proper party" was succinctly explained in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay [(1992) 2 SCC 524], wherein this Court held:
"6... 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 -9- NC: 2026:KHC:2896 WP No. 18932 of 2024 HC-KAR complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding."
34. In Kasturi v. Iyyamperuma [(2005) 6 SCC 733], this Court crystallized the twin tests for a necessary party:
"...the question of jurisdiction of the court to invoke Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to add a party who is not made a party in the suit by the plaintiff shall not arise unless a party proposed to be added has direct and legal interest in the controversy involved in the suit. two tests are to be satisfied for determining the question as to who is a necessary party. The tests are: (1) there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings; (2) no effective decree can be passed in the absence of such party."
35. This principle has been consistently reiterated. In Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels (P) Ltd (2010) 7 SCC 417, this Court reiterated:
"15. A "necessary party" is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. If a "necessary party" is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2896 WP No. 18932 of 2024 HC-KAR dismissed. A "proper party" is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the court has no jurisdiction to implead him, against the wishes of the plaintiff. The fact that a person is likely to secure a right/interest in a suit property, after the suit is decided against the plaintiff, will not make such person a necessary party or a proper party to the suit for specific performance."
36. Thereafter, in Vidur Impex & Traders (P) Ltd. v.
Tosh Apartments (P) Ltd. [(2012) 8 SCC 384], the broad principles governing impleadment were summarized:
"41.2. A necessary party is the person who ought to be joined as party to the suit and in whose absence an effective decree cannot be passed by the court.
41.3. A proper party is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and properly adjudicate upon all matters and issues, though he may not be a person in favour
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2896 WP No. 18932 of 2024 HC-KAR of or against whom a decree is to be made.
41.4. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the court does not have the jurisdiction to order his impleadment against the wishes of the plaintiff."
37. In the case at hand, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not claiming any relief against the appellant. There is no iota of material to indicate that the relief, as claimed in the suit against respondent No.3, if granted, would be implemented against the appellant. Therefore, the appellant is not a necessary party to the suit.
38. The appellant cannot also be construed as a proper party once it has failed to establish that it is a successor to the respondent No.3. In the absence of any evidence to prove that respondent No.3 has ceased to exist or cannot be represented in the suit on its own to contest it on merits, we are of the opinion that the appellant is not even a proper party to provide any assistance to the court in the suit.
39. This apart, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 who have instituted the suit are dominus litis and it is for them to choose their adversaries. If they do not array the proper and necessary parties to the suit, they do it at their own risk. However, they cannot be compelled to
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2896 WP No. 18932 of 2024 HC-KAR add a party to defend a suit against their wishes. The decree, if any, passed in the suit would be binding only between the parties to the suit and would not infringe upon any right of a third party, much less of the appellant that is not a party to the suit.
40. This conclusion is reinforced by the fundamental principle laid down in Kanaklata Das v. Naba Kumar Das [(2018) 2 SCC 352], wherein this Court has observed:
"11.4. ....the plaintiff being a dominus litis cannot be compelled to make any third person a party to the suit, be that a plaintiff or the defendant, against his wish unless such person is able to prove that he is a necessary party to the suit and without his presence, the suit cannot proceed and nor can be decided effectively. In other words, no person can compel the plaintiff to allow such person to become the coplaintiff or defendant in the suit. It is more so when such person is unable to show as to how he is a necessary or proper party to the suit and how without his presence, the suit can neither proceed and nor it can be decided or how his presence is necessary for the effective decision of the suit.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2896 WP No. 18932 of 2024 HC-KAR 11.5. ....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."
41. xxx
42. xxx.
43. We are conscious of the fact that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 is simply supervisory in nature and that the High Court ought not to have intervened in the matter. However, once the order has been interfered with, and rightly so, we do not wish to commit another illegality by restoring an incorrect order passed by the court of first instance.
44. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the appeals lack merit and are dismissed but with the direction that the decree passed in the suit would not be used against the appellant and would not be implemented against it.
45. The appeals are dismissed with no order as to cost."
7. The trial court has come to the conclusion that the proposed defendant no.2 was neither a proper nor necessary party to the suit
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2896 WP No. 18932 of 2024 HC-KAR and the impugned order passed by the trial court rejecting the impleadment application is in conformity with well settled principles of law governing impleadment of parties and as such, the impugned order cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor the same is said to have resulted in miscarriage of justice warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors v. Chhabi Nath and Ors. [(2015) 5 SCC 423], K.P.Natarajan and Ors. vs. Muthalammal and Ors [AIR 2021 SC 3443] and Mohd. Ali v. V.Jaya [(2022) 10 SCC 477]. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
8. It is however made clear that rejection of the application for impleadment filed by the petitioner and confirmed by this order will not preclude the petitioner from urging all contentions and putting forth all defences in the suit which shall be considered by the trial court in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE hkh.
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10