- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5963 WP No. 3480 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3480 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MAHADEV AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O CHENNEGOWDA NOW RESIDING AT 6/A KANAIKANA HALLI BENTENAHALLI POST KASABA HOBLI HASSAN DISTRICT 573115 2. SRI HARSHA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS S/O DASE GOWDA NOW RESIDING AT NO. 9 YDUGIRI NILAYA, HANIYAMBADI OPP KALIKAMBA CERAMICS KAVERI NAGAR, MANDYA-571401 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. HEGDE RAMAKRISHNA S.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MUTHU BAI AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS W/O LATE SATHYANARAYANA RAO R/O 85, 9TH CROSS PIPELINE ROAD DATHATREYA TEMPLE STREET MALLESWARAM BENGALURU 560 003. Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5963 WP No. 3480 of 2025 2. SRI MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA R/O GIDADAKONENA HALLI YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI BENGAURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-560022. 3. SRI ANIL AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS ROYAL BOREWEL AND PROPERTIES NO.2323,’A’ “D” GROUP LAYOUT R/O GIDADAKONENA HALLI YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT 560 022 …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.01.2025, ON IA NO. 7 UNDER SECTION 151 CPC AND ALSO ORDER ON IA NO. 9 UNDER ORDER XXVI RULE 9 READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC VIDE (ANNEXURE-A), PASSED BY XXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU IN O.S NO. 8841/2017 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR RELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5963 WP No. 3480 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioners-defendant Nos.1 and 2 challenging the order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the XXXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on I.A.No.7 filed by the plaintiff under Section 15 of CPC and I.A.No.9 filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC, in O.S.No.8841/2017, whereby the Trial Court has allowed I.A.No.7, and I.A.No.9 has been kept in abeyance till the evidence of both parties concluded. 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for bare injunction. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. The said application came to be allowed restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit schedule property. The defendants have challenged the same before this Court in MFA No.5064/2018. This Court, by order dated 11.01.2019 has disposed of the appeal and held that the injunction - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5963 WP No. 3480 of 2025 order passed by the Court below on I.A.No.2 shall continue to operate till the disposal of the suit in O.S.No.8841/2017. When the matter was posted for evidence, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.7 under Section 151 of CPC seeking for police protection and defendant Nos.1 and 3 filed I.A.No.9 under Section Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC seeking for appointment of Court Commissioner to conduct survey of suit schedule properties. The Trial Court, by impugned order has allowed I.A.No.7, and I.A.No.9 has been kept in abeyance till the evidence of both parties concluded. Being aggrieved, the present petition is filed by the defendant Nos.1 and 3. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the police can implement the order of the Court only if the parties have disobeyed the order. He submits that the petitioners have not disobeyed the orders passed by the Trial Court. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5963 WP No. 3480 of 2025 4. The earlier injunction order granted by the Trial Court on an application filed by the plaintiff Under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC has been confirmed by this Court in MFA No.5064/2018 disposed of 11.01.2019 wherein this Court held that the injunction order passed by the Court below on I.A.No.2 shall continue to operate till the disposal of the suit in O.S.No.8841/2017. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed I.A.No.7 seeking for police protection. The Trial Court considering the same, has rightly allowed the said application directing the SHO of Annapoorneshwari Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru to assist the plaintiff to implement the orders passed by the Trial Court as well as this Court. There is no error or illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court on I.A.No.7. Hence, the order passed by the Trial Court on I.A.No.7 is confirmed. 5. However, in respect of I.A.No.9 filed by the defendant Nos.1 and 3 is concerned, the Trial Court is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after hearing the parties. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5963 WP No. 3480 of 2025 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE DM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9