N. APPANNA Vs. SRIMATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition by defendant No.4 in O.S.No.25917/2007 is directed against the impugned order dtd. 29/8/2025 passed by the XL Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge , Bangalore, whereby the application-I.A.No.3/2025 filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff seeking impleadment of proposed defendant Nos.6 to 11 was allowed by the trial Court.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.

(3.) A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.1/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner/defendant No.4 and other defendants for partition and separate possession of her alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties and other reliefs. The said suit is being contested by the petitioner/defendant No.4 and other defendants. Both the parties having adduced oral and documentary evidence, the matter was posted for final arguments. At which stage, respondent No.1/plaintiff filed the instant application seeking impleadment of proposed defendant Nos.6 to 11 on the ground that they were family members and as such in the suit for partition, they were both proper and necessary parties to the suit. The said application having been opposed by the petitioner/defendant No.4, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing I.A.No.3/2025 on the ground that the proposed defendants were both proper and necessary parties to the suit. While arriving at the said conclusion, the trial Court held as under: