ORDER : (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J.) W.P.No.13779/2020, is filed seeking for the following reliefs : a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other proper writ or direction, quashing the order dated 03.02.2020 by Hon'ble Court of XIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore, in O.S.No.15342/2004, on I.A.No.12 under Order 1, Rule 20 of Civil Procedure Code, vide Annexure-'E'. b) Allow Annexure-'C' thereby allowing the petitioners application filed under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of Civil Procedure Code permitting them to come on record as Defendant No.6 to 9, as prayed in the application. W.P.No.13787/2020 is filed seeking for the following reliefs : a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other proper writ or direction, quashing the order dated 03.02.2020 by Hon'ble Court of XIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore, in O.S.No.15341/2004, on I.A.No.12 under Order 1, Rule 20 of Civil Procedure Code, vide Annexure-'E'. b) Allow Annexure-'C' thereby allowing the petitioners application filed under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of Civil Procedure Code permitting them to come on record as Defendant No.6 to 9, as prayed in the application. W.P.No.13814/2020 is filed seeking for the following reliefs : a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other proper writ or direction, quashing the order dated 03.02.2020 by Hon'ble Court of XIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore, in O.S.No.15344/2004, on I.A.No.12 under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of Civil Procedure Code, vide Annexure-E b) Allow Annexure-'C' thereby allowing the petitioners application filed under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of Civil Procedure Code permitting them to come on record as Defendant No.6 to 9, as prayed in the application. 2. In all the aforesaid writ petitions, common question arises as to whether the petitioners are necessary and proper parties to the suit filed by the respondent No.1. Hence, all the petitions are clubbed together, heard together and a common order is passed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners filed an application for impleadment in a suit filed by the respondent No.1 on the ground that they are the second wife and children of respondent No.2-defendant No.1 Sri.Byyanna. Hence, all the petitions are clubbed together, heard together and a common order is passed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners filed an application for impleadment in a suit filed by the respondent No.1 on the ground that they are the second wife and children of respondent No.2-defendant No.1 Sri.Byyanna. It is submitted that the respondent No.1 without making all the family members as parties, filed a suit against Sri.Byyanna who is the husband and the father of the applicants and after the death of said Sri.Byyanna, his son Yogeesh was brought on record without arraying the proposed applicants as parties to the proceedings. Hence, an application for impleadment under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was filed. However, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the application was filed belatedly and proceeded to reject the application. It is submitted that the petitioners did not have the knowledge of the filing of the suit and during the pendency of the said proceedings, filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the CPC which is permissible. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 4. Per contra, Sri.Baiju Stephen, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 supports the impugned orders and submits that the filing of such an application claiming to be the second wife and children of Sri.Byyanna is without any basis and such application is filed after 15 years of filing of the suit. Hence, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the same. 5. Sri.Chetan B.R., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 also supports the impugned order of the Trial Court and submits that the Bank has the charge over the property. Hence, he seeks to pass an appropriate order. 6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 and perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by both the sides. 7. The respondent No.1/original plaintiff claiming to be the purchaser of the sites from defendant Nos.1 and 2, filed a suit for the relief of judgment and decree of declaration that he is owner of the suit schedule property and permanent injunction against the defendants. The said suit was defended by the defendants. 7. The respondent No.1/original plaintiff claiming to be the purchaser of the sites from defendant Nos.1 and 2, filed a suit for the relief of judgment and decree of declaration that he is owner of the suit schedule property and permanent injunction against the defendants. The said suit was defended by the defendants. During the pendency of the said suit, the petitioners have filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking to implead them. The affidavit accompanying the said application indicates that the petitioner No.1 claimed that she is the second wife of Sri.Byyanna-the original defendant No.1 and the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 claimed that they are the children of Sri.Byyanna. The said application was filed after 10 years of death of defendant No.1 and after 15 years of commencement of the proceedings. The petitioners have made an assertion that they are the second wife and children of late Byyanna. However, the said fact is required to be gone into by due enquiry as provided under Order XXII Rule 4 of the CPC when specifically the respondent No.1 has denied the relationship. The Trial Court, considering the said aspect has rightly come to conclusion that after a delay of 10 years, such an application is filed and the wife and son of Sri.Byyanna are already representing the proceedings. I do not find any error in the order of the Trial Court in rejecting such an application. The plaintiff has specifically denied that the applicants are the wife and children of late Byyanna. The said issue cannot be gone into the suit filed by the respondent No.1 and it is always open for the petitioners to avail other remedies available on record and seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following : ORDER : The writ petitions are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. 9. In view of the disposal of the writ petitions, the pending applications do not survive for consideration and are accordingly, disposed of.