Sri. S. L. Venkatesh v. Prakash

((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:42755( WP(No.(25061(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010551832026( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( TH DATED(THIS(THE(12 (DAY(OF(AUGUST,(2026(

BEFORE(

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

WRIT(PETITION(NO.(25061(OF(2026((GM-CPC)(

(

BETWEEN:(( (

1., SRI.,S.,L.,VENKATESH,

S/O,LATE.,LINGAIAH,, AGED,ABOUT,69,YEARS,, R/A.,NO.203,,SLV,AKASH,JEEVAN,APTS,,,

SLV,LAYOUT,,NAYANDHALLI,SOUTH,,, MYSORE,MAIN,ROAD,,, BANGALORE,-,560,039.,

,

2., SMT.,R,KRISHNA,KUMARI, W/O,SRI.,S,L,VENKATESH,

AGED,ABOUT,60,YEARS,, R/A,NO.203,,, SLV,AKASH,JEEVAN,APTS,,,Digitallytisigned

SLV,LAYOUT,,NAYANDHALLI,SOUTH,,,by0SUVARNA0T Location: MYSORE,MAIN,ROAD,,, HIGH0COURT BANGALORE,-,560,039, OF …PETITIONERS,KARNATAKA (BY,SRI.,NAGARAJ,R,,ADVOCATE), , AND:( (

1., PRAKASH, S/O,VENKATAPPA, AGED,ABOUT,55,YEARS, R/O,BIDANAGERE,VILLAGE,, KASABA,HOBALI,KUNIGAL,TALUK,, TUMAKURU,,, KARNATAKA-572130, ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:42755( WP(No.(25061(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010551832026( ( ( ,

2., PUSHPA, W/O,PRAKASH,BIDANAGERE, AGED,ABOUT,50,YEARS, R/O,BIDANAGERE,VILLAGE,,, KASABA,HOBALI,,, KUNIGAL,TALUK,,, TUMAKURU,, KARNATAKA,–,572,130, ,

3., RANGA,@,RANGASWAMY, S/O,PRAKASH,BIDANAGERE, AGED,ABOUT,25,YEARS, R/O,BIDANAGERE,VILLAGE,, KASABA,HOBALI,,KUNIGAL,TALUK,, TUMAKURU,, KARNATAKA,–,572,130, ,

4., SRINIVAS,BIDANAGERE, S/O,LATE,RANGAPPA,BIDANAGERE, AGED,ABOUT,53,YEARS,, R/O,BIDANAGERE,VILLAGE, KASABA,HOBALI,,KUNIGAL,TALUK,, TUMAKURU,, KARNATAKA,–,572,130, …RESPONDENTS, , , THIS, WP, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLE, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO, ISSUE, A, WRIT, OF, MANDAMUS, DIRECTING, THE, LEARNED, ADDL., CIVIL, JUDGE,&, JMFC,,KUNIGAL,,TUMAKURU,TO,TAKE,UP,,HEAR,AND,DISPOSE, OF, I.A, NO.1, FILED, BY, PETITIONERS, UNDER, ORDER, XXXIX, RULES,1,AND,2,READ,WITH,SECTION,151,OF,CPC,1908,IN,O.S, NO.788/2026, EXPEDITIOUSLY, VIDE, ANNEXURE-E,, IN, ACCORDANCE,WITH,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

The present writ petition is filed seeking mandamus directing the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal, Tumakuru, to dispose of I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.788/2026.

¶2Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs submits that by order dated 25.07.2026, the trial Court had issued suit summons to the defendants without considering I.A.No.1 filed by the petitioners seeking ad-interim injunction. He has relied on the order passed by the 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." s

¶3Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is passing the following order: ORDER i. The trial Court shall consider I.A.No.1 in accordance with law, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, notwithstanding the fact that the suit summons is not served on the respondents.

ii. The petitioner is at liberty to advance the matter. iii. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. iv. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.

Sd/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37