- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1362 WP No. 52386 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 52386 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: PUSHPAMMA W/O LATE G KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/A BRAMHANARA BEEDI NEAR RAHGAVENDRA TEMPLE HOSAKOTE TOWN HOSAKOTE TALUK - 562 114 BANGALORE RURAL DIST. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARAVIND REDDY H. FOR SRI.D. ASWATHAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VARADAPPA S/O LATE BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 2. SRI. V RAJU S/O VARADAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 3. MUNEGOWDA S/O VARADAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1362 WP No. 52386 of 2019 4. SRI. RAVI S/O CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 5. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O CHIKKAVARADAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 6. SRI. HARISH S/O JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 7. SRI. NAGARAJ S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 8. SRI. MUNIRAJU S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 9. SRI. VENKATEGOWDA S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 10. SRI. HANUMA S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 11. SRI. MAHESH S/O GUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 12. SRI. SRINIVASA S/O JANAKAMMA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1362 WP No. 52386 of 2019 13. SRI. YANDA S/O JANAKAMMA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 14. MUNIRAJU S/O LATE BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS ALL ARE R/A BENIDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BANGALORE DIST - 560 049. …RESPONDENTS (R1 TO R14 ARE SERVED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2019 PASSED BY THE LOWER APPELLATE COURT IN FR.M.A. NO.100/2019 IS DISMISSING THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND OF MAINTAINABILITY FILED BY THE PETITIONER UPHOLDING THE OFFICE OBJECTIONS RAISED ON MAINTAINABILITY VIDE ANNEXURE-A; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 4.11.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-B IN O.S.NO.1464/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT IA NO.1 AND 2 CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-S12. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1362 WP No. 52386 of 2019 ORAL ORDER This petition is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1464/2019 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru ['the civil Court']. The petitioner has called in question the civil Court's order dated 04.11.2019 and the order dated 12.11.2019 in FR MA No.100/2019 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru ['the appellate Court']. 2. The civil Court by the order dated 04.11.2019 has issued an emergent notice on the petitioner's application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for ex parte injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's asserted possession of the property bearing No.69 [Janjar No.69] measuring 3 acres 22 guntas of Bendiganahalli, Bidarahalli, Bengaluru East Taluk and with e-Katha in No.150200401600600065 with the Mandur Grama Panchayat [the subject property]. The civil Court, in issuing such emergent notice, has - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1362 WP No. 52386 of 2019 opined that the petitioner has not made out sufficient ground for grant of ex parte temporary injunction. The petitioner's appeal in FR MA No.100/2019 as against such order is dismissed as not maintainable. 3. This Court on 19.12.2019 has granted interim order restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's asserted possession of the subject property, and this interim order has prevailed. When queried, Sri Aravind Reddy H., the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the respondents are served with the suit summons and notice of the application, but they are yet to file their written statement. Indeed, the appellate Court's decision on the maintainability of the appeal as against the civil Court's decision to issue only notice on application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 without granting ex parte temporary injunction could be well founded because of this Court’s decision in MFA No. 3837/2018 which is decided on 21.12.2018. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1362 WP No. 52386 of 2019 4. However, in the present case, this Court, because interim order to maintain status quo granted way back in December 2019 has prevailed all these years and the respondents though served have remained absent and though served in the suit are yet to file written statement, is inclined to dispose of the petition directing the petitioner to maintain status quo without changing the nature of the subject property and directing the respondents also not to change the nature of the subject property leaving open all questions to be decided by the civil Court. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA ct:sr