- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14773 WP No. 35969 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 35969 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI RAJA L. SAMPATH S/O LATE RAJAH LAKSHMI NARASIMHA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS NO.571, BAZAAR STREET BANGARPET KOLAR DISTRICT-563 114. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PREETHAM PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI D. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. NANDINI PERUMAL @ KALPANA PERUMAL W/O PERUMAL AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS NO.1586, VIJAYANAGAR BANGARPET KOLAR DISTRICT-563 114. 2. SRI PERUMAL S/O KANAKAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS NO.1586, VIJAYANAGAR BANGARPET KOLAR DISTRICT-563 114. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. VIJETHA R. NAIK, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14773 WP No. 35969 of 2019 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, AT BANGARPET, TO DISPOSE OF THE INTERIM APPLICATION NOS.1 AND 9 FILED IN O.S.NO.261/2011 AT THE EARLIEST AND IN ANY EVENT WITHIN 2 MONTHS VIDE ANENXURE-D AND F., ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.261/2011 pending on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Bangarpet. He is said to have made several applications before the trial court and on the ground that instead of considering the said applications keeping them in abeyance, the trial court has posted the matter for evidence, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Copies of three applications said to have been filed before the trial court are part of the writ petition. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14773 WP No. 35969 of 2019 (i) The first application is filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC with the following prayer: "The Plaintiff prays that for the reasons sworn to in the accompanying Affidavit, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order of Temporary Injunction, restraining the defendants, their agents, representatives, henchmen, supporters and anybody acting on their behalf from interfering over the drainage so as to prevent the free flow of drainage water attached to the Schedule Property in any manner, till disposal of the above suit, in the interest of justice and equity. In view of urgency of the matter notice of this application may be dispensed to the defendant under Order 39 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and pass an ad-interim order of temporary injunction in like terms. (ii) The second application is filed under Order 39 Rule 2(A) of CPC with the following prayer: "That for the reasons sworn to in the accompanying affidavit, the Plaintiff most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to initiate proceedings against the Defendants for their willful violation of the order of Temporary Injunction passed in the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14773 WP No. 35969 of 2019 above suit by attaching the adjoining suit schedule property and also to detain the Defendants in Civil Prison, in the interest of justice and equity." (iii) The third application is filed under Section 151 of CPC with the following prayer: "That for the reasons sworn to in the accompanying affidavit, the Plaintiff most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Circle Inspector of Police to provide protection to implement the orders of this Hon'ble Court dated 19.9.2011, in the interest of justice and equity." 3. The prayer made in the writ petition reads as under: "WHEREFORE the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court be please to: a) Issue a Writ of mandamus directing the Hon'ble Principal Civil Judge, at Bangarpet, to dispose of the interim application No.1 & 9 filed in OS No.261/2011 at the earliest and in any event within 2 months vide Annexure-D & F. b) Issue any Writ or order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case, including an order as to cost of this Writ petition, in the interest of justice and equity." - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14773 WP No. 35969 of 2019 4. The pleadings in the writ petition reveal that I.A.No.1 to be an application made under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for grant of an order of temporary injunction and I.A.No.9 pertains to initiate proceedings against the defendants for their willful violation of the order of temporary injunction said to have been passed by the trial court. 5. The pleadings are incomprehensible on the ground that if temporary injunction is already granted by the trial court, then the question of considering the said application once again does not arise. If the order of temporary injunction is not granted, then the question of entertaining the application for willful violation of the same does not arise. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the arguing counsel, who is a Senior, has gone abroad and he does not know anything about the case. The writ petition is of the year 2019 and the case status before the trial court reveals that the case is still at the stage of plaintiff's - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14773 WP No. 35969 of 2019 evidence. At present, the interim order granted in the writ petition also has not been extended. 7. Further, as the suit has been filed by the petitioner himself, it may not be appropriate to stay further proceedings in the said suit. In addition to it, the writ petition is filed seeking only a direction to the trial court to consider the interlocutory applications pending before it. (Unfortunately, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to assist the Court as to which are the applications pending before the trial court). However, under the given facts and circumstances of the case, when an application is pending before the trial court, the trial court is required to dispose of the same in accordance with law. 8. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The trial court is directed to dispose of the interlocutory applications pending on its file in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14773 WP No. 35969 of 2019 also dispose of original suit No.261/2011 as expeditiously as possible; (ii) The parties shall co-operate for quick disposal of the case and any unnecessary adjournment before the trial court may require heavy costs being imposed on the parties concerned. (iii) The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE hkh. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40