- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3134 WP No. 101046 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.101046 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: A.M. VEERAIAH S/O. LATE AJJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. MANYARAMASALAVADA VILLAGE, TQ: HUVINAHADAGALI-583 131 VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.L. PATIL AND SRI. S.A. SONDUR, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. H.M. RENUKAIAH S/O. LATE H.M. MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. SOGI VILLAGE, TQ: HUVINAHADAGALI, VIAYANAGAR DISTRICT-583 131. 2. H.M. VRUSHABENDRAIAH S/O. LATE H.M. MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. SOGI VILLAGE, TQ: HUVINAHADAGALI, VIAYANAGAR DISTRICT-583 131. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ARAVIND H., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 AND R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25/01/2025 IN MISC. APPEAL NO.9/2023 BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI ITINERARY SITTING AT SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE HUVINAHADAGALI ON VIDE ANNEXURE-L AND CONSEQUENTLY CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED ON IA NO.1 DATED 08/09/2023 IN O.S.NO.120/2023 BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HADAGALI VIDE ANNEXURE-H; ANY OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS WHICH THE HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE MAY KINDLY BE GRANTED IN FAVOUR OF THIS PETITIONERS ALONG WITH COSTS OF THIS PETITION. GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3134 WP No. 101046 of 2025 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. May be pleased to quash the Order dated 25/01/2025 in misc. Appeal no.9/2023 by the Learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Hagaribommanahalli itinerary sitting at Senior Civil Judge Huvinahadagali on vide Annexure-L and consequently confirm the order passed on IA No.1 dated 08/09/2023 in O.S.No.120/2023 by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Hadagali vide Annexure- H; b. Any other suitable Orders or directions which the Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of case may kindly be granted in favour of this Petitioners along with costs of this Petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are; 2.1. The petitioner had initially filed a suit in O.S.No.107/2019 seeking for specific performance of an agreement of sale, under which the petitioner claimed that vacant possession of the suit property had been handed over to the petitioner. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3134 WP No. 101046 of 2025 2.2. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.120/2023, alleging that the defendants were interfering with the possession of the plaintiff and as such, O.S.No.120/2023 is filed for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. 2.3. Initially, the Trial Court has granted an order of injunction, which came to be vacated on a First Appeal being filed in M.A.No.9/2023. 2.4. It is challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that, irrespective of the suit for specific performance being filed, a suit for injunction is maintainable, since the interference was made in the year 2023, a fresh suit is filed. Alternatively, he submits that the Trial Court having dismissed the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3134 WP No. 101046 of 2025 application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, the First Appellate Court ought to have reserved liberty to the petitioner to move a similar application in the pending suit for specific performance in O.S. No.107/2019. 4. Learned counsel for Respondents No.1 and 2 would submit that, in the suit in O.S.No.107/2019, an application had been filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, seeking for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff, which having been rejected, the subsequent suit could not have been filed. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no such rejection of the application for injunction, came to be passed. 6. Heard Sri K.L.Patil., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Aravind H., learned counsel appearing for respondents. Perused the papers. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3134 WP No. 101046 of 2025 7. The undisputed fact is that the plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S.No.107/2019 for specific performance of contract wherein, an application for injunction had been filed. Subsequently, a suit in O.S.No.120/2023 had been filed only for bare injunction. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that an application filed for injunction in O.S.No.107/2019 is still pending, whereas the contention of the learned counsel for respondents is that the said application has been rejected. The said application is required to be taken up along with the merits of the matter. 9. Looked at from any angle, a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.107/2019 having been filed and an application for injunction having been filed therein, the plaintiff could not have filed a separate suit in O.S.No.120/2023 seeking only for injunction. As such, the First Appellate Court in M.A.No.9/2023 has rightly rejected the application for injunction. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3134 WP No. 101046 of 2025 10. If at all the petitioner were to seek for any injunction, it was for the petitioner to a move the Court seized of O.S.No.107/2019 for consideration of the application for injunction, which the Court could decide to take up or not depending on the facts of the matter. 11. The order passed by the First Appellate Court being proper and correct, does not require any interference. 12. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to move the Court seized of O.S.No.107/2019 in terms of the above observations, petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE gab – upto para 4 AM – para 5 to end CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15