- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25569 WP No. 18636 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 18636 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: G.M. INFINITE DWELLING INDIA PVT. LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING REG. OFFICE AT NO.6, G.M. PEARL, 1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE, BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 068. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN-MANAGING DIRECTOR GULAM MUSTAFA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S. SUDHARSAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. N.D. DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., REGISTERED COMPANIES ACT 1956, NO.398, 1ST FLOOR, 7TH CROSS, MICO LAYOUT, BTM 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 076, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. M. K. K. NAYEEM DURANI. 2. K.S. PURSHOTTAM REDDY, S/O. K.L. SHAMAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25569 WP No. 18636 of 2025 R/A. NO.110, MILK DAIRY, DODDAKANNAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 035. 3. SMT. ANANTHAMMA W/O. LATE LAKSHMAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS. 4. SRI. L. RAVISHANKAR S/O. LATE LAKSHMAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 5. SMT. INDUPRIYA D/O. L.K. RAVISHANKAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. 6. SMT. NEHA D/O. KL RAVISHANKAR AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS. 7. SMT. MALATHI W/O. KL RAVISHANKAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. 8. SRI. KL SRINIVAS. S/O. LATE LAKSHMAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. 9. SRI. NITHIN S/O. KL SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. 10. SMT. SHYAMALA W/O. KL SRINIVAS. AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25569 WP No. 18636 of 2025 11. SMT. K.L. VANI D/O. LAKSHMAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 12. SMT. PRIYANKA D/O. KL VANI AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS (3) TO (12) R/A. DODDAKANNELLI VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST. BENGALURU - 560 035. 13. SMT. SHAKUNTALA B.M, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS W/O. SRI. H. GOVINDARAJU. 14. SRI. H. GOVINDA RAJ AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O. SRI. HANUMANTHA REDDY. 15. SRI. NAVEEN G. AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/A. SRI. H. GOVINDARAJU. 16. SMT. SOWMYA H. G. AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS D/O. H GOVINDARAJU (13) TO (16) R/A HALANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, CARMELARAM POST, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST, BENGALURU - 560 035. 17. SRI. RAMESH REDDY V. S/O. VENKATARAMANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/A. NO.2026, 15TH CROSS, 22ND C MAIN, 1 SECTOR, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25569 WP No. 18636 of 2025 HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P. CHINNAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. NIVEDITHA K.S. GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R13 TO R16; SRI. K.C. RAVINDRA BABU, ADVOCATE FOR R17) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) PASS A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.06.2025 PASSED ON I.A. NO. 4 PASSED BY BY THE VI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU, IN O.S. NO.27 02/2025 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayers: "a) Pass a Writ of Certiorari and set-aside the impugned order dated 18.06.2025 passed on I.A.No.4 passed by the VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru in O.S.No.27/02/2025 produced as ANNEXURE A. b) Such other order/direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case including an order as to costs." - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25569 WP No. 18636 of 2025 2. Heard Shri S. Sudarshan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri P. Chinnappa, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1; Smt. Niveditha K.S. Gowda, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.13 to 16 and Shri K.C. Ravindra Babu, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.17. 3. The petitioner is the plaintiff, institutes a suit in O.S.No.2702/2025 and files an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the CPC' for short) seeking an ex-parte temporary injunction against the respondents from alienating, encumbering or changing or altering the nature of the suit schedule property. The applications were answered by the concerned Court and on the score that the plaintiff has not paid the deficit court fee, the interim order stood vacated. It is at that juncture the petitioner comes at the doors of this Court. 4. This Court on 30.06.2025 had passed the following order: "Petitioner is the plaintiff. The concerned Court answering application filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, passes the following order: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25569 WP No. 18636 of 2025 "As per IA No.1 and 2 by order of exparty temporary injunction the Defendants or anybody claiming through or under them from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule properties and from changing or altering the nature of suit properties till next date of hearing in any manner. Plaintiff to comply the order 39 Rule 3 CPC. Issue TI notice of IA No.1 and 2 and suit summons to Defendants No.1 to 17 through the process of court and by RPAD. It is made it clear if there is any deficit process fee/plaint copies/RPAD covers same shall be complied forthwith in the office, if not the temporary injunction order is deemed to have been vacated. Call on: 12-06-2025 Sd/- 11/4/2025 VI ACC & SJ., B'luru" It is indicated that if the deficit court fee is not paid, the temporary injunction would be deemed to be vacated. On the date of the interim order, ` 350/- was paid. The deficit court fee is communicated to the plaintiff only on 11.06.2025. Immediately on the said date of communication of the deficit court fee, the petitioner/plaintiff has complied with the same and filed an application seeking restoration of the interim order. The same is not restored on the score that the application seeking restoration is not maintainable. In that light, I deem it appropriate to restore the interim injunction granted on 11.04.2025 till the next date of hearing. List this matter on 09.07.2025 in Preliminary Hearing." - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25569 WP No. 18636 of 2025 The interim order captured the grievance of the petitioner in as much as the deficit court fee that was indicated was only on 11.06.2025, the date on which the concerned Court had posted the matter. In that light, the interim order was granted as after coming to know the deficit court fee, the petitioner had immediately paid the court fee. 5. Few of the respondents are now represented in the light of the interim order granted, restoring the temporary injunction so granted by the Concerned Court which was vacated on account of the non payment of deficit court fee and it being paid at a later point in time, I deem it appropriate to direct the parties to appear before the concerned Court on 17.07.2025. The respondents are at liberty to file their objections before the concerned Court on the written statement or on the plaint or, as the case would be. Since the interim order is now granted or the temporary injunction is now restored, it shall continue till further orders would be passed at the hands of the concerned Court. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25569 WP No. 18636 of 2025 6. It is needless to observe that the applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC shall after hearing the respondents be disposed, as expeditiously as possible. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 2 Sl No.: 43 CT: BHK