Sri. Narasimhappa, v. Smt. Rathnamma @ Chikka Rathnamma

((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:43964( WP(No.(24148(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010527722026( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

TH DATED(THIS(THE(17 (DAY(OF(AUGUST,(2026(

BEFORE(

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

WRIT(PETITION(NO.(24148(OF(2026((GM-CPC)(

BETWEEN:(( (

1., SRI.,NARASIMHAPPA,, S/O,LATE.,SUNKADA,GANGAPPA,,,

AGED,ABOUT,81,YEARS,, ,

2., SRI.,CHIKKA,ADEPPA,, S/O,LATE.,SUNKADA,GANGAPPA,,,

AGED,ABOUT,66,YEARS,,

,

3., SRI.,ADINARAYANAPPA,, S/O,LATE.,ASHWATHAPPA,,, AGED,ABOUT,51,YEARS,

,

4., SRI.,VENKATESH,, Digitally signedtiby S/O,GANGADHARAPPA,, SUVARNA0T AGED,ABOUT,36,YEARS, ,Location: HIGH0COURT PETITIONERS,NO.1,TO,4,ARE,R/AT,, OF B.,BOMMASANDRA,VILLAGE,,, KARNATAKA D.,PALYA,HOBLI,,GOWRIBIDANUR,TALUK,, CHIKKABALLAPURA,DISTRICT,-,561,213, ,

5., SRI.,KRISHNAPPA,, S/O.,LATE,NARASIMHAPPA,,, AGED,ABOUT,56,YEARS,, R/AT,KADALAVENI,VILLAGE,,, ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:43964( WP(No.(24148(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010527722026( ( ( KASABA,HOBLI,,GOWRIBIDANUR,TALUK,, CHIKKABALLAPUR,DISTRICT,-561,210, …PETITIONERS, (BY,SRI.,INDRADHANUSH,CHAVAN,,ADVOCATE), AND:( (

1., SMT.,RATHNAMMA,@,, CHIKKA,RATHNAMMA, W/O,CHINNAPPAIAH,, D/O,NARAYANAPPA,, AGED,ABOUT,43,YEARS,,, ,

2., SMT.,GANGARATHNAMMA, W/O,HANUMANTHAPPA,, D/O,NARAYANAPPA,, AGED,ABOUT,60,YEARS,, ,,

3., SMT.,GANGAMMA,, W/O,LATE.,GOWRAYAPPA,, ,AGED,ABOUT,70,YEARS,, ,

4., SRI.,GANGANNA,, S/O,LATE.,GOWRAYAPPA,,, AGED,ABOUT,47,YEARS,, ,

5., SMT.,PAPAMMA, D/O,LATE.,GOWRAYAPPA,,, AGED,ABOUT,43,YEARS,, , RESPONDENTS,NO.1,TO,5,ARE,ALL, R/AT,B.,BOMMASANDRA,VILLAGE,,, D.,PALYA,HOBLI,,GOWRIBIDANUR,TALUK,, CHIKKABALLAPUR,DISTRICT,-,561,213, …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,INDRADHANUSH,CHAVAN,,ADVOCATE),

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE WP DIRECTING THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GAURIBIDANUR TO CONSIDER THE IA NO. 1 IN OS NO. 270/2025 SEEKING TO RESTRAIN THE RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS FROM INTERFERING WITH THE POSSESSION OF THE SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY BY THE PETITIONERS AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE 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 the following prayers: "a) Allow the above Writ Petition. b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus as per Annexure- 'A' directing the learned Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Gauribidanur to consider the I.A. No.1 in O.S. No. 270/2025 seeking to restrain the Respondents/Defendants from interfering with the possession of the Suit Schedule Property by the Petitioners as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.. c) Award any other costs and reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit in the above petition, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶2Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the plaintiffs have filed a suit seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. In the said suit, IA No.1 was filed on

24.07.2025 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking order of temporary against the defendants. However, the Trial Court has failed to consider the said application.

¶3In this regard, reliance is placed on the order passed by a 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 the 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."

¶4Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, perused the entire material on record. 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. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the Trial Court to dispose of the I.A. No.1 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, notwithstanding the fact that the suit summons were not served on the defendants.

ii. Petitioners are at liberty to advance the matter. iii. All pending I.As., in the petition shall stand closed.

SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31