Smt. Puttamma v. Shri Shine K Anthony

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 21547 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:

1. SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O LATE. MUNINANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS

2. SMT. RAJAMMA W/O RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE

¶3SHRI.KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS OCC AGRICULTURE/ SELF BUSINESS

¶4SHRI. MUNIRAJU S/O MUNINANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE

¶5SHRI.VENKATASWAMY S/O LATE. MUNINANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS (PHYSICALLY CHALLENGED)

ALL ARE PERMANENT RESIDENTS OF KOTHTHAJEEGURU VILLAGE, PEDDABELAGONDAPALLI POST, DENKANIKOTE TALUK KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT,

by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

TAMILNADU-635 114 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. G.A.SRIKANTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1SHRI SHINE K ANTHONY S/O ANTONY K.C AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 237, G.P.R GRAND, GOWRAMMA LAYOUT, CHANDAPURA ATTIBELE, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560 099

¶2SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA, D/O LATE. ALLALAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/A SHIVARA PATNA VILLAGE AND POST, MALURU TALUK, KOLARA-563 130 …RESPONDENTS

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALLING FOR THE RECORDS AND PROCEEDS OF THE CASE, THIS HONBLE COURT BE PLEASED TO EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND TO ISSUE.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

ORAL ORDER

The present writ petition is filed questioning the orders dated 09.07.2026 in O.S.No.472/2026 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal, the plaintiff is before this court.

¶2Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff has filed a suit, O.S.No.472/2026, seeking a permanent injunction, and has also filed I.A.No.1 for an injunction, wherein the trial court has issued suit summons to the defendants on I.A.No.1. Instead of considering the same on the merits of the matter, the trial court issued an emergent notice and suit summons.

¶3Further he has relied on the order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Dhalitha Vividha Gramodyoga Kaigarika Sahakara Sanga Niyamitha (R) Vs Samatha Sainika Dal SSD, arising out of W.P.No.35488/2025(GM-CPC)dated

09.12.2025, whereby Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed as follows: "6. This Court does not find any need or necessity to issue notice to the respondent-defendant for the reason that the petitioner is questioning the non-passing of the order on the application in IA.No.1, wherein the

trial Court has neither passed any order for grant of an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction or for rejection of the same.

¶7When an application is filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC by the plaintiff along with the plaint seeking an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction, it becomes the duty and obligation of the trial Court to consider the same and pass suitable orders either granting or rejecting the ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction. This Court in the case of Karnataka State Cricket Association vs. Mr.Shashidhara A.V. in WP.No.33725/2025 [Decided on 17.11.2025] has made certain observations and guidelines as to how the trial Court has to deal with an application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. It is not optional for the trial Court to merely issue notice to the defendant before passing an interim order of temporary injunction against the defendant.

¶8The trial Court will also have to consider judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Shiv Kumar Chadha vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others reported in (1993)3 SCC 161, Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1674 and the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vedant Fashions Pvt. Ltd., vs. Smt.Rajul Devi reported in 2014 SCC Online Kar 7191 while deciding the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.

¶9It is brought to the notice of this Court that notice is yet to be served on the defendant. Therefore, it would be appropriate for this Court to direct the trial Court to decide the application either granting or rejecting an ad interim ex parte order of

temporary injunction by providing proper reasons." It is submitted that when an IA is filed seeking an interim injunction, the trial court ought to have considered it on the merits of the matter without issuing summons to the other

¶4In the light of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also considering the order passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.35488/2025(GM-CPC) dated 09.12.2025 this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is disposed of directing the trial court to consider I.A.No.1 within a period of one week from the date of the receipt of the copy of order, notwithstanding the fact that the suit summons are not served on the defendant. ii. Pending I.As., in this petition shall stand closed.

SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

TS, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31