- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9823 WP No. 39012 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 39012 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. 1(A) 1(B) SRI. RAMASWAMY SINCE DEAD BY L.RS. SMT. NAGARATHNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS D/O. LATE RAMASWAMY W/O. SRI. MOHAN RESIDENT OF MUGULURU VILLAGE KOOGURU POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK - 562 125. SRI. SURESH R AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS S/O. LATE RAMASWAMY RESIDING AT SY. NO.51/1A DODDATHIMMASANDRA GATE MAHAL CHOWDENAHALLI SARJAPURA POST AND HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK - 562 125. (AMENDED AS PER THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 12/09/2024) …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V VINOD REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR P1(A) AND P1(B)) Digitally signed by ROOPA R U Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9823 WP No. 39012 of 2018 AND: 1. SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA S/O SRI. LATE NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDENT OF DODDATHIMMASANDRA VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK. 2. SRI SWASANTHRA KUMAR S/O SRI. LATE NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDENT OF DODDATHIMMASANDRA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK. 3. SMT. MANJULA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT #51, JAGAT LAYOUT DODDADUNNASANDRA-CROSS, MM SANDRA POST, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 067. (AMENDED AS PER THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 17/02/2025) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SAGAR B.B. AND SANDEEP KUMAR K S, ADVOCATES FOR R1 & R2) THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.8.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, ANEKAL ON THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 26 RULE 9 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN O.S.NO.476/2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-E. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9823 WP No. 39012 of 2018 ORAL ORDER The petitioner/plaintiff who has filed a suit for bare injunction in O.S.No.476/2012 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Anekal, is before this Court being aggrieved by the Order dated 18.08.2018 passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the filing of the above application under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC is necessitated in view of suggestion made to the plaintiff-witness during the cross examination to the effect that the residential house and other structures being claimed by the petitioner/plaintiff are existing in the land bearing Sy.No.50 and not in Sy.No.51/1A. He submits, since the location of the property claimed by the petitioner/plaintiff is disputed, filing of the said application to identify the same became imperative which the trial Court has failed to appreciate. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9823 WP No. 39012 of 2018 4. In response, the learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the land bearing Sy.No.51/1A, totally measures one acre eight guntas which the defendant has purchased in terms of deed of sale. As such, the plaintiff has no claim over the said property. If he has any claim, he has to file a suit for substantive relief. Hence, he submits, the Trial Court has committed no errors in the matter with rejecting the application warranting no interference. 5. Heard and perused the records. 6. The property subject matter of dispute, described in suit schedule of the plaint is as under: S C H E D U L E All that piece and parcel of a portion of the land measuring 07 guntas out of 01 acre 08 guntas in Sy.No.51/1A of Mahal Chowdadenahalli, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk together with a dwelling house with pump set and pump house and cattle shed thereon and bounded on the: East by : Tank bed, West by : IVC Road, North by : Land in Sy.No.50 belonging to the plaintiff, and South by : Remaining portion of the land in Sy.No.51/A belonging to the defendants. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9823 WP No. 39012 of 2018 7. Thus, the relief is sought in respect of 7 guntas of land out of 1 acre 8 guntas in Sy.No.51/1A. 8. In paragraph No.8 of the written statement, the defendant has stated as under: "The defendant submits that the suit schedule property measuring 7 guntas bearing Sy.No.51/A is a part and parcel of land of 1 acre 08 guntas. The dwelling house pump set and pump house and cattle shed also a part and parcel of the said 1 acre 08 guntas." 9. Thus even according to the defendants/respondents, the suit property being claimed by the petitioner/plaintiff is the part of 1 acre 8 guntas of land in Sy.No.51/1A. Thus, absolutely there is no confusion emanating in the pleadings with regard to location of the property. Since, the application is filed by the plaintiff essentially to identify the location of the property, apparently on the basis of answer to the suggestion made in the cross examination to the effect to the property being claimed by the petitioner is in Sy.No.50 and not in Sy.No.51/A, same is of no consequences in view of specific averments made at paragraph No.8 of the written statement by the defendants. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9823 WP No. 39012 of 2018 10. In view of the aforesaid fact situation of the matter, is more particularly with regard to admissions by the defendants as to existence of the suit schedule property within the boundaries of the property purchased by him, there appears to be no confusion with regard to the location and identification. Though this reasoning is not found in the impugned order, the rejection of the application cannot be found fault with even otherwise. Petition lacks merits, the same is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE JS, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8