- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7641 WP No. 36478 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 36478 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT LINGARAJAMMA W/O LATE MAHALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS R/AT MADANURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI TIPATUR TALUK TUMKURU-572201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PAVAN KUMAR N, ADVOCATE FOR SMT.MANJULA D.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NAGARATHNAMMA LATE MAHALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT KASABA HOBLI TIPATURU TALUK TUMKURU-572201. 2. SUJATHA D/O LATE MAHALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT ACHARA PALYA ECHANURU POST TIPATUR TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT- 572201. Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7641 WP No. 36478 of 2024 3. PUSHPAVATHI D/O LATE MAHALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT SHREE SIDDAESHWARA NILAYA 9TH CROSS, GANGOTRINAGAR SIT EXTENSION TUMIKURU-572103. 4. M RAVINDRASWAMY LATE MAHALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT MADANURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI TIPATUR TALUK TUMKURU-572201. 5. LATHA D/O MAHALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT ATTIKATTER GANGASANDRA POST KADABA HOBLI GUBBI TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT-572201. 6. MALLIKARJUNA M S/O MAHALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT MADANURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI TIPATUR TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT-572201. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED: 24.11.2023 IN IA NO. 7 IN OS NO. 42/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT TIPUTUR WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7641 WP No. 36478 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff challenging the order dated 24.11.2023 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Tiptur, on I.A.No.7 filed by plaintiff under Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.42/2020, whereby the Trial Court has rejected the said application. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.2 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. The Trial Court by order dated 15.03.2021 has allowed the said application and restrained the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties, till further orders. Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed I.A.No.7 seeking direction to the jurisdictional police to give protection to plaintiff to enter the suit schedule property. The Trial Court, by impugned order has dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7641 WP No. 36478 of 2024 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the writ papers. 4. The order dated 15.03.2021 passed by the Trial Court on the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC is only in respect of restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties, till further orders. The Trial Court has not passed any order stating that the parties shall take yield of the crop from the suit schedule property and neither it has restrained anybody from doing so. In that case, there is no question of passing any order on the application filed by the plaintiff seeking police protection. Therefore, the Trial Court after considering all these aspects has rightly rejected the said application filed by the plaintiff. 5. Viewed from any angle, there is no error or illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court. No good grounds are made out to exercise the supervisory jurisdiction vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7641 WP No. 36478 of 2024 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 7. However, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE DM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16