- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19918 W.P. No.41765/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.41765/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. S.R. SATYANARAYANA S/O S.R. CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT JANATHA COLONY SULIBELE VILLAGE & HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562129. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AMARESH A. ANGADI, ADV.,) AND: SRI. D. MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS RESIDING AT OLD POST OFFICE ROAD SULIBELE VILLAGE & HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RUAL DISTRICT-562129. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A.G. NAGARAJA, ADV.,) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE HONBLE COURT OF ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSKOTE BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE COURT OF ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HOSKOTE ON IA NO.6 FILED U/S 151 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.240/2017 DATED 17.7.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A & ETC. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19918 W.P. No.41765/2019 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: a. Call for the records from the Hon'ble Court of Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hoskote, Bangalore Rural District. b. To set-aside the impugned order passed by the Hon'ble Court of Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Hoskote on IA No.6 filed under section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.240/2017 dated 17.07.2019 vide Annexure- A. c. to pass such other order or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the Petitioner's case, in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Heard. 3. Sri.Amaresh A.Angadi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff to pass the judgment and decree against the petitioner and another seeking prayer for restraining them from putting up any construction without leaving the set backs towards the western side of item Nos.1 & 2 of the suit schedule property by way of permanent injunction and other prayers is not maintainable in view of Section 64 of the Karnataka Gram - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19918 W.P. No.41765/2019 Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. With regard to set backs, the jurisdiction lies with the Gram Panchayat of the area, hence the suit is not maintainable. It is further submitted that this Court in the cases of Mathew Phillips vs. P.O.Kosh1 and Dr.K.Panduranga Nayak vs. Jayashree and others2 has clearly held that the suit of this kind is not maintainable. Without considering the maintainability of the suit, the trial Court has granted injunction and thereafter granted police protection vide impugned order dated 17.07.2019, which is contrary to the facts and law. It is also submitted that the construction was completed long back even before filing of the suit, therefore, the question of granting injunction order and consequential police protection would not arise. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order. 4. Per contra, Sri.A.G.Nagaraja, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the suit filed by the respondent is very much maintainable as it is the petitioner who is putting up construction without leaving set backs, as the respondent is the 1 AIR 1996 MYSORE 74 2 AIR 1990 KARNATAKA 236 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19918 W.P. No.41765/2019 owner of item Nos.1 & 2 of the suit schedule property and the petitioner is the owner of item No.3 of the suit schedule property. Considering all these aspects, the trial Court has initially granted order dated 10.11.2017 restraining the petitioner herein by way of temporary injunction from putting up any construction in the suit schedule property and after hearing the petitioner and respondent, again on 03.07.2019, the application filed by respondent under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC came to be allowed. It has further ordered that petitioner is restrained from putting up any construction over item No.3 of the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit. The said order came to be challenged by the petitioner in M.A.No.102/2020 and the appellate Court confirmed the said order. It is further submitted that despite the restraining order, the petitioner-defendant No.2 has proceeded to continue with the construction activity in violation of the interim order, which compelled the respondent-plaintiff to file an application under Section 151 of CPC seeking for police protection to implement the interim order dated 03.07.2019. In support of his contentions, he places reliance on the decision of this Court in Smt.Karisiddamma and Others vs. Smt.Sanna - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19918 W.P. No.41765/2019 Kenchamma3 and Papanna vs. Nagachari4 and submits that the trial Court has inherent powers to provide police protection to the party, who has the benefit of interim injunction. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 5. I have heard the arguments of both side and perused the material available on record. 6. The pleading and material on record indicate that O.S.No.240/2017 is filed by the respondent-plaintiff against the petitioner-defendant No.2 and another seeking judgment and decree restraining them from putting up any construction without leaving set backs towards western side of item Nos.1 & 2 of the suit schedule property by way of permanent injunction and other prayers. In the said suit, the petitioner has filed the written statement and contested the matter. The order sheet indicates that the trial Court, at the first instance on 10.11.2017 passed the interim order restraining the petitioner herein by way of temporary injunction from putting up any construction in the suit schedule property till further orders. On 3 ILR 2010 KAR 1197 4 ILR 1996 KAR 1271 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19918 W.P. No.41765/2019 the said date, the petitioner did not appear. Later, on 03.07.2019 an application filed by the respondent under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC, after hearing both side, the trial Court has ordered that the petitioner and another are restrained from putting up any construction over item No.3 of the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit. 7. It is not in dispute that the said order was challenged by the petitioner in M.A.No.102/2020, the appellate Court vide order dated 02.08.2022 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by confirming the order dated 03.07.2019, the said order is passed on its merits after providing sufficient opportunity to the parties. Hence, the order dated 03.07.2019 has attained finality. The respondent-plaintiff herein has filed an application under Section 151 of CPC on 27.05.2019 seeking the direction to the jurisdictional police for protection and to stop putting up of construction by the petitioner-defendant No.2 in item No.3 of the suit schedule property. The said application is accompanied with an affidavit, wherein the respondent-plaintiff has categorically made a statement that dehors the orders of the trial Court, the petitioner is putting up construction, hence, such an act of the petitioner has compelled - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19918 W.P. No.41765/2019 him to file an application. The said application was opposed by filing objections contending that the suit filed by the respondent is not maintainable. The trial Court, considering the rival submissions and averments made in the application, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has proceeded to put up construction in violation of the interim order and directed police protection by allowing the said application. Hence, I am of the considered view that the trial Court has considered all the aspects of the matter and allowed the application, I do not find any error in the impugned order calling for interference in this petition. 8. The co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Papanna referred supra, has considered similar situation and observed at para Nos.7 & 8 as under : "7. It is to be noted that the order of temporary injunction was confirmed by the Trial Court after hearing the defendant and considering his objections by its order dated 3.7.1992. Defendant, dissatisfied with the above order, filed an appeal before the Additional Civil Judge, which was also dismissed on 20.11.1993 on a consideration of the entire matter. It does not lie in the mouth of the defendant to contend that he is still in possession of the property and that the order of injunction cannot be given effect to. When the Court has prima facie considered the matter and has granted a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff after hearing the defendant, the Court has to enforce the same and the contention of the defendant that he is in possession, cannot be accepted at this stage. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19918 W.P. No.41765/2019 8. The second ground raised by the Counsel for the revision- petitioner is also equally untenable. The mere fact that there is provision under Order 39 Rule 2(a) for taking action for disobedience of an order of temporary injunction, does not prevent the Court from taking steps to see that its orders are implemented. If the Court had no power to implement its own orders, then there is no purpose in the Courts passing orders in matters coming before them. The remedy under Order 39 Rule 2(a) is not exhaustive and Court can pass appropriate orders to see that its orders are enforced. In necessary cases, even the police can be directed to enforce the orders of the Court. In this case that alone has been done by the Trial Court and I do not find any error of jurisdiction warranting interference under Section 115 of C.P.C." 9. This Court in the case of Smt.Karisiddamma and Others referred supra, has held that on filing an application seeking for police protection for implementation of the injunction order, the Court can always exercise its inherent power to grant police aid and the aggrieved party can always challenge the order of grant of injunction before the appropriate forum. This Court has further observed that the aggrieved party cannot be precluded from seeking police protection in enforcing the temporary injunction order just because he can exercise the remedy provided under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of CPC. The Court has discretion to consider the facts and circumstances of the case and consider such application. Keeping in mind, the settled position of law and the nature of injunction granted by the trial Court and violation of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19918 W.P. No.41765/2019 such order by the petitioner, I am of the considered view that the trial Court is fully justified in allowing the application for police protection. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is with regard to maintainability of the suit, the same cannot be gone into at this stage. It is always open for the petitioner to raise such contentions in the pending suit so that the trial Court can look into the same and take appropriate decision. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any justifiable reasons to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court in providing police protection. For the aforementioned reasons, this writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39