Karnataka High Court
Sri Venkategowda vs Sri B K Ramaiah on 10 December, 2025
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:52423
WP No. 37251 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.37251 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI VENKATEGOWDA
S/O.CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
R/AT KANNEGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ARCHITHA SURESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI B.K.RAMAIAH
S/O.LATE KEMPAHANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS
R/AT BASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123
2. SMT.LAKSHMAMMA
Digitally signed
by D/O.SRI B.K.RAMAIAH
GAVRIBIDANUR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
SUBRAMANYA
GUPTA R/AT BASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE
SREENATH
KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123
KARNATAKA
3. SMT.KEMPAMMA
D/O.SRI B.K.RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT BASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:52423
WP No. 37251 of 2025
HC-KAR
4. SRI GOVINDARAJU
S/O.LATE NARASEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT KANNEGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123
5. SRI MAHINDRA
S/O.SRI GOVINDARAJU
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT KANNEGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123
6. SRI PRASANNA
S/O.SRI GOVINDARAJU
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/AT KANNEGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123
7. SRI RAGHUVAIAH
S/O.LATE MUDDHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT KANNEGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123
8. SRI SUNILKUMAR
S/O.LATE C.R.PRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT NO.44, 10TH CROSS
K.R LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR 6TH STAGE
BENGALURU-560 078
9. SRI N.R.CHANDAN
S/O.SRI N.A.RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT NO.4839, PARAMANNA LAYOUT
NELAMANGALA TOWN
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:52423
WP No. 37251 of 2025
HC-KAR
10. M/S.KNS SPACES LLP
LLP REGISTERED UNDER THE
LIMITED LIABILITY OF
PARTNERSHIP ACT, 2008
HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT NO.1125/12, 1ST FLOOR
SERVICE ROAD, HAMPINAGAR
VIJAYNAGAR 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-560 104
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR.PAVAN KUMAR H.N.
11. VISTRA ITCL (INDIA) LIMITED
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT
3RD FLOOR, J.B.HOUSE, 110
4TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK
KORAMANGALA INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560 095
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO GRANT AN AD
INTERIM ORDER OF EXPARTE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
RESTRAINING DEFENDANT NOS.7 AND 10/RESPONDENT NOS.7
AND 10 FROM INTERFERING WITH PLAINTIFF'S PEACEFUL
POSSESSION OVER THE SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND
ALIENATING SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTIES PENDING DISPOSAL
OF IA.NOS.1 AND 2 IN O.S NO.1032/2025 BEFORE THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU
RURAL DISTRICT VIDE ANNEXURES-C & C1 AND ETC.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:52423
WP No. 37251 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
ORAL ORDER
Heard Smt.Architha Suresh, learned counsel for petitioner.
2. The present petition is filed by the plaintiff seeking the following reliefs:
"a. Grant ad-interim order of exparte Temporary Injunction restraining the defendant No.7 and 10/Respondents No.7 and 10 from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession over the suit schedule property and alienating suit schedule properties pending disposal of the IA No.1 and 2 in O.S No.1032/2025 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural District vide Annexures-C and C1, until disposal of IA.No.1 & 2.
b. Grant such other relief that this Hon'ble
Court deem fit in the facts and
circumstances of the matter."-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:52423 WP No. 37251 of 2025 HC-KAR
3. Parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.
4. The plaintiff has instituted a suit against the defendants seeking the following reliefs:
"(a) Declare that what was purchased by Syed Kasim Saheb S/o Syed Noor Ahmed Saheb under registered Sale Deed dated 24.10.1944 subsequently by RAmegowda under registered Sale Deed dated 04.06.1953 measuring 19 guntas was in Sy.No.81/1 of Kannegowdanahalli Village and not in Sy No.48 of Kannegowdanahalli Village.
(b) Declare the Sale Deed dated 21.11.2012 executed by Defendant No.1 to 3 in favour of Defendant No.4 in respect of 19 guntas of land in old Sy No.81/1 is null and void and without title and not binding on the Plaintiff and his family members.
(c) Declare the Sale Deed dated 04.09.2013 executed by Defendant No.4 to 6 in favour of Defendant No.7 in respect of item No.2 of suit schedule property is null and void -6- NC: 2025:KHC:52423 WP No. 37251 of 2025 HC-KAR and without title and not binding on the Plaintiff and his family members.
(d) Declare the Sale Deed dated 26.05.2014 executed by Defendant No.4 to 6 in favour of Defendant No.8 in respect of item No.1 of suit schedule property is null and void and without title and not binding on the Plaintiff and his family members.
(e) Declare the Sale Deed dated 19.01.2018 executed by Defendant No.8 in favour of Defendant No.9 in respect of item No.1 of suit schedule property is null and void and without title and not binding on the Plaintiff and his family members.
(f) Declare the Sale Deed dated 19.07.2023 executed by Defendant No.9 in favour of Defendant No.10 in respect of item No.1 of suit schedule property is null and void and without title and not binding on the Plaintiff and his family members.
(g) Declare the Mortgage deed dated 10.06.2024 executed by Defendant No.10 in favour of Defendant No.11 and Discharge deed dated 23.06.2025 executed by Defendant No.11 in respect of -7- NC: 2025:KHC:52423 WP No. 37251 of 2025 HC-KAR item No.1 of suit schedule property in favour of Defendant No.10 is null and void and without title and not binding on the Plaintiff and his family members.
(h) For permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants or anybody claiming under them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff and his family members over the Suit Schedule Property.
(i) In the event this Hon'ble Court holds that the Plaintiff is not in possession of the Suit Schedule Property, to direct the Defendants to deliver vacant possession of the Suit Schedule Property to the Plaintiff.
(j) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case with costs of the suit in the ends of justice and equity."
5. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff filed two applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking an ad interim ex parte order of temporary -8- NC: 2025:KHC:52423 WP No. 37251 of 2025 HC-KAR injunction. However, the trial Court without passing any order on the said application, has issued emergent notice on IA.No.1 and suit summons to the defendants.
6. This Court does not find any need or necessity to issue notice to the respondents-defendants for the reason that the petitioner is questioning the non-passing of the order on the applications, wherein the trial Court has neither passed any order for grant of an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction or rejection of the same.
7. When 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. -9- NC: 2025:KHC:52423 WP No. 37251 of 2025 HC-KAR 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.
8. The 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.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:52423 WP No. 37251 of 2025 HC-KAR
9. In view of the above, 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.
10. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) This petition is allowed;
ii) The matter is remitted back to the trial Court to consider the applications in IA.Nos.1 and 2 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S.No.1032/2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala and pass suitable orders by providing proper reasoning;
iii) It is the discretion and liberty of the trial Court to either grant or reject an ad interim order. But nevertheless, the trial Court is duty bound and obligated to provide proper reasoning while doing so;
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:52423 WP No. 37251 of 2025 HC-KAR
iv) The learned trial Court Judge shall decide the applications in accordance with the observations made in the judgments as stated supra;
v) Parties to the proceedings shall maintain status quo till consideration of the applications in IA.Nos.1 and 2 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC by the learned trial Judge.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE LB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27