- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2385 WP No. 201080 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO.201080 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: M/S SHRI PRASANNA ANJANEYA AGROTECH, SY. NO.142, HISSA 1, SINDNOOR ROAD, MANVI, RAICHUR – 584 123. REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS PARTNER SRI M.R.SRIKANTH. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUMANTH M.S. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE) AND: M/S SRI SAPTAGIRI AGRO TECH, SY. NO.127/2 NEAR MANVI VILLAGE, RAICHUR ROAD, MANVI, KARNATAKA – 584 123. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI R.SRINIVAS. …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.11.2024 PASSED ON I.A. NO.II IN COM.O.S.NO.12/2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT RAICHUR (ANNEXURE ”C”) Digitally signed by LUCYGRACE Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2385 WP No. 201080 of 2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A.NO.II (ANNEXURE-“B”) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) Heard Sri Sumanth M.S., learned counsel for the petitioner who appears through video conference. 2. So far as maintainability of the writ petition is concerned, projecting that the writ petition is maintainable as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court which is reported in (2019) 4 SCC 214 – State of Jharkhand vs. Surendra Kumar Srivastava and others, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to hear the matter. In the decision that is referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner, an application filed for temporary injunction was dismissed and aggrieved by the same a writ petition was filed. However in the case on hand, the petitioner, as per the material that is available on record moved an application - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2385 WP No. 201080 of 2025 for grant of temporary injunction and the Court issued notice to the respondent on the said interlocutory application and no orders on merits were passed. 3. Keeping that fact aside, the docket orders filed at Annexure-C clearly reveals that learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff at no time sought for disposal of the said interlocutory application. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that the counsel appearing for petitioner/plaintiff before the trial Court did not insist for disposal of the said interlocutory application. Learned counsel again states that oral request was made on one occasion. However the docket proceeding does not disclose any such prayer being made. However, as the Court is bound to look into the interlocutory applications, if any pending, and dispose of those interlocutory applications time bound, this Court considerable desirable to dispose of the writ petition, directing the Trial Court to look into the matter and dispose of the interlocutory application i.e., I.A.No.II in Com.O.S.No.12/2024 time - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2385 WP No. 201080 of 2025 bound. Thus, writ petition is disposed of with the following : ORDER i. The Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Raichur is directed to verify about the pendency of I.A.No.II in Com.O.S.No.12/2024 and in case, the same is pending, it shall be dispose of as expeditiously as possible preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. ii. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (Dr.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13 CT:NI