- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19893 WP No. 24239 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 24239 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI KOTAREDDY SINCE DEAD BY LRS., 1. RATHNAMMA W/O LATE KOTAREDDY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 2. SMT. ANUSUYA D/O KOTAREDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 3. SMT. ANNAPOORNA D/O LATE KOTAREDDY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 4. SMT. ANITHA D/O KOTAREDDY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 4 R/AT BYARASANDRA VILLAGE MURUGAMMALLA HOBLI CHINTAMANI TALUK – 563 125 Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19893 WP No. 24239 of 2024 CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI S.N.ASHWATHANARAYAN, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI S.A.SUDHINDRA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K.F.NOOR BASHA S/O LATE FREEDHA SAB AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT KORLPARTHY VILLAGE CHILAKALANERPU HOBLI CHINTAMANI TALUK - 563 125 NOW RESIDING AT 1ST CROSS B CHINNASANDRA LALBAHADUR NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 043. 2. C.B.JAYARAMAREDDY S/O BAYYAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O CHENNARAYANA HALLI VILLAGE YENAMALAPADI POST CHINTAMANI TALUK – 563 125 CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.S.CHANDRASHEKAR BABU, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI SIDDHARTH B.MUCHANDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 01.08.2024 (ANNX-K) PASSED IN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19893 WP No. 24239 of 2024 M.A.NO. 03/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHICKBALLAPURA SITTING AT CHINTAMANI. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Petitioners – plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 are before this Court calling in question an order dated 01.08.2024, passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chickaballapura, sitting at Chintamani, by which, the order dated 15.02.2020, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani, on an application – I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, granting ad-interim exparte temporary injunction, is set aside. 2. Heard Sri S.N.Ashwathanarayan, learned senior counsel for Sri S.A.Sudhindra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M.S.Chandrashekar Babu, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Siddarth B. Muchandi, learned counsel for respondent No.2. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19893 WP No. 24239 of 2024 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The plaintiffs are said to be the absolute owners of the suit schedule property. It transpires that the plaintiffs enter into a registered agreement of sale in favour of the first defendant. The registered agreement of sale is appended to the statement of objections by the defendants. The registered agreement of sale indicates that the defendants have been handed over possession of the property and are left with the enjoyment of the property as they are general power of attorney holders, which is entered into on 05.03.2013. The property is sold to defendant No.2 on 27.06.2019. After the sale, it transpires that the petitioners have woken up and instituted a suit in O.S.No.102 of 2019. The concerned Court grants a temporary injunction in terms of its order dated 15.02.2020, which is tossed by the defendants before the first appellate Court and the first appellate Court appears to have taken three years to consider the application filed by the defendants, seeking to set aside the order of temporary injunction, in M.A.No.3/2021. Finally, it passed an order on 01.08.2024, setting aside the order of temporary injunction, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19893 WP No. 24239 of 2024 after having kept the matter for one year without passing any order. 4. The observation made by the first appellate Court is that, the defendants have been handed over possession pursuant to the registered agreement of sale and therefore, the trial Court could not have granted the temporary injunction. As the suit is of the year 2019, to protect and preserve status quo between the parties, I deem it appropriate to direct the concerned Court to dispose the suit itself, expeditiously as 6 years have already passed by, and in the interregnum, direct the parties to maintain status quo, qua the property, which shall however be subject to the result of the suit. 5. With the aforesaid observations and direction, the petition stands disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6