- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13340 WP No. 9404 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9404 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. MR HODRALI SRINIVAS GURURAJ S/O. H.R. SRINIVAS RAO AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 2. MRS. RASHMI VISHNU @ V RASHMI W/O. H S GURURAJ AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO. 61, OLD NO. 41, EWS LAYOUT KATHRIGUPPE SRINIVAS NAGAR BANGALORE - 560085. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANTHOSH U., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MRS VEENA W/O. RAMESH BABU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT. NO. 53/2, JAI GANESH BUILDING MOUNT JOY EXTENSION HANUMANTHNAGAR BANGALORE - 560019. 2. MRS. SHEETAL JAIN @ SHOBHA JAIN W/O. RAJENDRA KUMAR Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13340 WP No. 9404 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO. 61, EWS LAYOUT KATHRIGUPPE, BSK 3RD STAGE BANGALORE - 560085. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 06.03.2025 IA NO. 17 IN OS NO. 4267/2020 AT ANNEXURE-A PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BANGALORE (CCH-27) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 06.03.2025 passed on IA No.17 in O.S.No.4267/2020 by the XII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby, the application filed by defendants 2 and 3 to issue summons to the Sub-Registrar, to examine as a witness, has been rejected. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money. Defendant No.1 executed a registered agreement of sale dated 03.04.2019 in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- (rupees one crore fifty lakhs - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13340 WP No. 9404 of 2025 only) and she has paid advance amount of Rs.43,00,000/-. Since she has not executed the sale deed, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money with 18% interest. Since the first respondent has not performed her part of the contract, plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money with 18% interest, which comes to Rs.53,96,500/- (inclusive of 18% interest). The trial court, by order dated 05.02.2021 has granted an injunction order restraining the defendant No.1 from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property. During the operation of the injunction order, the defendant No.1 alienated the suit schedule property in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3, i.e., the petitioners herein, by a registered sale deed dated 09.06.2022. Since the sale deed has been executed during the pendency of the suit, the alienation is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Hence, they have not impleaded as parties – defendant Nos. 2 and 3. 3. The specific case of the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 is that when they verified in the encumbrance at the Sub- Registrar’s office, there is no entry regarding the dispute - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13340 WP No. 9404 of 2025 pending between the parties, before the Civil Court. To that effect, they have also produced the documents obtained from the Sub-Registrar to show that there is no entry regarding the pendency of the suit. Therefore, they are the bonafide purchasers. To prove their case, they want to examine the Sub-Registrar. 4. The dispute in this case is that the defendant No.1, during the pendency of the suit and during the operation of the injunction order has alienated the property. The burden lies on the defendant No.1 to prove that he has not vioflated the impugned order. Therefore, the examination of the Sub- Registrar, at this stage, is not necessary. The trial court has rightly rejected the application. There is no error or illegality in the order passed by the trial court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 17