- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13622 WP No. 107356 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 107356 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: UFM HANUMANTH, S/O LAKMAYYA GOUDA, AGE. 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT HEGRE, KASARKOD 581342, TALUK HONAVAR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR GOUDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UFM GAJANAN TIMMAPPA NAIK, AGE. 45 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT KASARKOD, KELAGINOOR 581342, TALUK HONAVAR. 2. UFM TIMMAPPA LAKMAYYA GOUDA, AGE. 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT HEGRE, KASARKOD 581342, TALUK HONAVAR. 3. UFM MANJU GOYDA GOUDA, AGE. 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT HEGRE, KASARKOD 581342, VINAYAKA B V Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.10.06 10:23:08 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13622 WP No. 107356 of 2025 TALUK HONAVAR. 4. UFM GAJANAN RAMACHANDRA SHANBHAG, AGE. 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT SINDANIKERI, KASARKOD 581342, TALUK HONAVAR. 5. UFM DINESH RAMACHANDRA SHANBHAG, AGE. 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT SINDANIKERI, KASARKOD 581342, TALUK HONAVAR. 6. MADHAV MANJUNATH SHANBHAG, AGE. 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT KASARKOD, KELAGINOOR VILLAGE-581342, TQ. HONNAVAR, AT PRESENT MUMBAI. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN OS NO.36/2024 PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HONNAVAR AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR SUCH OTHER WRIT DIRECTION OR ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 17/09/2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HONNAVAR ON IA NO.III AND VI IN OS NO.36/2024 WHEREBY IA NO.III AND VI ARE KEPT IN ABEYANCE AND POST THE MATTER FOR ISSUES VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND GRANTING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING ON IA NO.III AND VI & ETC. THIS WP COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13622 WP No. 107356 of 2025 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ) Defendant No.2 in O.S. No.36/2024 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Honnavar (for short, ‘the Trial Court’), is before this Court challenging the order dated 17.09.2025 by which the Trial Court kept in abeyance the consideration of I.A. Nos.3 and 6. 2. The suit in O.S.No.36/2024 was filed for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff’s share in the suit schedule property. An application (I.A. No.3) was filed for an order of injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or transferring or encumbering the suit schedule property. The Trial Court in terms of an order dated 21.02.2024 granted ex parte injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, transferring or encumbering the suit schedule property. Defendant No.2, later, filed I.A. No.6 for counter injunction to restrain the plaintiff and his family members from interfering - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13622 WP No. 107356 of 2025 with his lawful possession of the counter-claim schedule property. 3. Both the applications were set down for consideration on 25.07.2025 on which date, the plaintiff’s counsel addressed argument on both the applications. The case was thereafter posted to 21.08.2025 on which date too, the counsel for the plaintiff addressed arguments on the said applications. The case was posted on 17.09.2025 to hear the counsel for the defendant No.2 on I.A. Nos.3 and 6. On 17.09.2025, the counsel for defendant No.2 sought time to address arguments on I.A. Nos.3 and 6. The Trial Court held in terms of the impugned order that enough opportunities were granted to defendants to address their arguments on I.A. Nos.3 and 6 and therefore, kept the applications in abeyance. Being aggrieved by the said order, defendant No.2 is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for defendant No.2 submits that an order of injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants from alienating, transferring or - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13622 WP No. 107356 of 2025 encumbering the suit schedule property and that the plaintiff, taking advantage of the order, was interfering with the possession of the second defendant. He contends that the Trial Court without giving enough opportunity to address arguments had kept the applications in abeyance. He contends that defendant No.2 sought time only on one occasion which was turned down by the Trial Court. He, therefore, contends that the Trial Court is bound to be directed to consider the said applications and dispose off them in accordance with law. 5. The Trial Court has not disposed off the applications, but has only kept the applications in abeyance in view of non-cooperation on the part of defendant No.2 in addressing the arguments on the applications. If the defendant No.2 had addressed his arguments on the applications (I.A. Nos.3 and 6) on 17.09.2025, the Trial Court would have proceeded to consider the applications. However, since the Trial Court has posted the case for framing of issues, it is only appropriate to direct the Trial Court to consider the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13622 WP No. 107356 of 2025 applications – I.A. Nos.3 and 6 soon after the issues are framed in accordance with law. In view of the above, this petition stands disposed off directing the Trial Court to consider the applications I.A. Nos.3 and 6 in accordance with law immediately after the issues are framed. Sd/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE KMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13