- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47669 WP No. 33732 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.33732 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. M/S.RHEA PROPERTIES PVT.LTD. COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.111, VENUS APARTMENTS CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI-400 005 REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SRI SANJAY C. 2. M/S.LEGACY GLOBAL PROJECTS PVT. LTD. COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 333, NOVA MILLER THIMMAIAH ROAD BENGALURU -560 052 REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SRI. SANJAY C …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SHARATH S.GOGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI B.M.SURESH S/O.LATE BOVIMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 2. SMT.NARAYANAMMA W/O.SRI BOVIMUNIYAPPA DAUGHTER IN LAW OF LATE BOVIMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 3. SMT.SHIVARATHNAMMA W/O.SRI B.M.RANAGASWAMY DAUGHTER IN LAW OF Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47669 WP No. 33732 of 2025 LATE BOVIMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 4. SMT.RANGAMMA @ RADHAMMA D/O.LATE BOVIMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R-1 TO R-4 ARE R/AT BIDALURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALRU RURAL-562 110 5. SMT.RAMAKKA W/O.LATE GAVIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 6. SRI THIMMARAYAPPA S/O.SRI DODDAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS 7. SRI NARAYANASWAMY S/O.LATE DODDAMUNIYAPPA MAJOR 8. SRI MUNIRATHNAMMA W/O.LATE CHIKKONU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 9. SRI HANUMAPPA S/O.LATE DODDAMUNIYAPPA MAJOR R-5 TO R-9 ARE R/AT BIDALURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL-562 110 10. SRI JALLAPPA S/O.LATE KALAPPA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS R/AT BIDALURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL-562 110 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47669 WP No. 33732 of 2025 11. SRI MUNIYAPPA S/O.LATE KALAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 12. SRI CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA S/O.LATE KALAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R-10 TO R-12 ARE R/AT BIDALURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL-562 110 13. SMT.KEMPAMMA W/O.LATE MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS 14. SMT.MUNIYAMMA D/O.LATE MARIYAPPA W/O.SRI SHIVANNA MAJOR R-13 AND R-14 ARE R/AT BIDALURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL-562 110 15. SMT.NARASAMMA D/O.LATE CHIKKAPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT BIDALURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL-562 110 16. SMT. MANJULA D/O.LATE CHIKKAPPAIAH W/O.SRI ERANNA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO.75, OLD AK COLONY DODDA BANASAVADI, VTC KALYANANAGARA POST BENGALURU-560 043 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47669 WP No. 33732 of 2025 17. SRI MANJUNATH C. S/O.LATE CHIKKAPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 18. SRI MUNINARASIMHAIAH C. S/O.LATE CHIKKAPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R-17 AND R-18 ARE R/AT BIDALURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL-562 110 19. SRI CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA S/O.LATE THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/AT BIDALURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL-562 110 20. SRI RAMESH C. S/O.LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT VADERAHALLI VILLAGE BIDALURU POST KASABA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL-562 100 21. SRI MANJUNATH C. S/O.LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA MAJOR R/AT BIDALURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL-562 110 22. SRI MUNINARAYANAPPA S/O.LATE KAIYYANNA AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS R/AT BIDALURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL-562 110 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47669 WP No. 33732 of 2025 23. SRI MUNISWAMAPPA S/O.SRI MUNINARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT VADERAHALLI VILLAGE BIDALURU POST KASABA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL-562 100 24. SMT.NARAYANAMMA W/O.LATE MUNI NARASIMAHAIAH MAJOR R/AT BIDALURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL-562 110 25. SMT.NARASAMMA D/O.SRI MUNINARAYANAPPA W/O.NARAYANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT VALLAPPANAHALLI CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK 26. SMT.GANGAMMA D/O.LATE PULLURAMMA W/O.SRI DURGAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 27. SMT.MANJULA D/O.SMT.GANGAMMA GRAND DAUGHTER OF LATE PULLURAMMA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 28. SRI MUNIKRISHNA S/O.SMT.GANGAMMA MAJOR R-26 TO R-28 ARE R/AT BIDALURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL-562 110 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47669 WP No. 33732 of 2025 29. SMT.MUNINARASAMMA WIFE OF LATE CHIKKANNA MAJOR R/AT BIDALURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL-562 110 30. SMT. MUNIRATHANMMA D/O.LATE MUNIYAPPA W/O.SRI NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT J.VENKATAPURA SHIDLAGATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 102 31. SRI MUNISHAMAPPA S/O.LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 32. SRI NARASIMHAPPA S/O.LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R-31 AND R-32 ARE R/AT BIDALURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL-562 110 33. SRI SHIVANNA S/O.LATE CHIKKAHUCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 34. SRI THIMMARAYAPPA S/O.LATE CHIKKAHUCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R-33 AND R-34 ARE R/AT BIDALURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL-562 110 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47669 WP No. 33732 of 2025 35. SMT.ANJINAMMA D/O.SRI THIMMARAYAPPA GRAND DAUGHTER OF LATE CHIKKAHUCCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT DODDA BYALALARE VILLAGE HESARAGHATTA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU-560 099 36. SRI MUNIYAPPA S/O.LATE CHIKKAHUCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS 37. SRI ANJINAPPA S/O.LATE CHIKKAHUCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R-36 AND R-37 ARE R/AT BIDALURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL-562 110 …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.10.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULES 1 AND 2 READ WITH 151 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.652/2025 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL VIDE ANNEXURE-A61. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47669 WP No. 33732 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Sharath S.Gogi, learned counsel for petitioners. 2. The present petition is filed by the plaintiffs seeking the following reliefs: "i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction setting aside the order of the trial court dated 24.10.2025 (Annexure - A61) passed by the Hon'ble Prl. Civil Judge on I.A. No. 1 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with 151 of C.P.C in O.S. No. 652/2025, on the file Hon'ble Prl. Civil Judge, Devanahalli, Bangalore. ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other order or direction directing an ex-parte ad-interim order of temporary injunction in the suit O.S.No.652/2025 on the file of the Hon'ble Prl. Civil judge, Devanahalli, Bangalore iii) Grant such other and further reliefs as are just, including the costs of the present petition. " - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47669 WP No. 33732 of 2025 3. Parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 4. The plaintiffs have instituted a suit against the defendants seeking the following reliefs: "a. Grant an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, their men or any one claiming through or under them from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of Schedule Properties by the plaintiffs. (b) Grant such other and further relief as are just including the costs of these proceedings. " 5. Along with the plaint, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants or their men, agents, servants or any one claiming through or under them from interfering with the possession of the Schedule Property by the plaintiffs and grant such other and further reliefs as are just. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47669 WP No. 33732 of 2025 6. While consider the said application, the trial Court has passed the following order: "The Plaintiffs have filed this suit against the Defendants for the relief of Permanent Injunction in respect of suit schedule properties. The Plaintiffs have also filed IA No.I Under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Sec.151 of CPC seeking Exparte TI Order restraining the Defendants from interfering with possession of the suit schedule properties till disposal of the suit. Perused the material on record. There after no grounds to pass an Exparte TI Order. Hence, it is just and proper to hear the other side before passing any Order on IA No.I. Hence, Issue Emergent Notice on IA No.I and suit summons to Defendants R/by 29.11.2025." However, the trial Court without passing any order on the said application, has issued emergent notice on IA.No.I and suit summons to the defendants, which is the subject matter of this petition. 7. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for petitioners-plaintiffs that the impugned order passed by learned trial Judge is illegal, perverse and contrary to - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47669 WP No. 33732 of 2025 the materials placed on record so also to the provision of law. The trial Court has not followed procedure while granting an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction. It is also further contended by learned counsel that despite the petitioners-plaintiffs prima facie placing several materials on record, the trial Court ought to have been granted an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction. Learned trial Judge has committed an error and illegality in not considering all these aspects and in not granting interim order of temporary injunction. It has mechanically passed the impugned order. 8. It is further contended that the trial Court has merely held that the plaintiffs have not made out a fit case to grant an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction and refused to grant the same without even looking into the documents produced by the plaintiff alongwith the plaint averments. Learned counsel further contends that the trial Court is not right in merely issuing emergent notice on IA.No.I and suit summons to the defendants without granting an ad interim ex parte order - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47669 WP No. 33732 of 2025 of temporary injunction. The trial Court ought to have considered all the materials placed and provided proper reasoning for not granting the interim order of temporary injunction, which is not done in the present case. 9. This Court does not find any need or necessity to issue notice to the respondents-defendants for the reason that the petitioner is questioning the non-passing of the order on the application, wherein the trial Court has neither passed any order for grant of an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction or rejection of the same. 10. When an application is filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC by the plaintiff along with the plaint seeking an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction, it becomes the duty and obligation of the trial Court to consider the same and pass suitable orders either granting or rejecting the ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction. This Court in the case of Karnataka State Cricket Association vs. Mr.Shashidhara A.V. in WP.No.33725/2025 [Decided - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47669 WP No. 33732 of 2025 on 17.11.2025] has made certain observations and guidelines as to how the trial Court has to deal with an application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. It is not optional for the trial Court to merely issue notice to the defendant before passing an interim order of temporary injunction against the defendants. 11. The trial Court will also have to consider judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Shiv Kumar Chadha vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others reported in (1993)3 SCC 161, Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1674 and the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vedant Fashions Pvt. Ltd., vs. Smt.Rajul Devi reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Kar 7191 while deciding the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. 12. In view of the above, it would be appropriate for this Court to direct the trial Court to decide the application - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47669 WP No. 33732 of 2025 either granting or rejecting an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction by providing proper reasons. 13. Accordingly, I pass the following: i) This petition is disposed off; ii) The Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural, is hereby directed to dispose off the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs seeking ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction by way of a reasoned order as only the emergent notice has been issued to the defendants, which is not the correct procedure of law; iii) Since the emergent notice is issued to the defendants on 24.10.2025, the trial Court is directed to hear the matter on the application for grant of an ad interim order of temporary injunction irrespective of the notice being served on the respondents-defendants and decide the same by virtue of a reasoned order; iv) The petitioners are at liberty to advance the matter on their urgency on the date, he so wishes and request the trial Court to hear the matter and pass suitable orders; - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47669 WP No. 33732 of 2025 v) It is made clear that the trial Court, while considering the application and passing a reasoned order, shall adhere to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited, Lucknow vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1674, Shiv Kumar Chadha vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others reported in (1993) 3 SCC 161 and the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vedant Fashions Pvt. Ltd., V/s Smt. Rajul Devi reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Kar 7191. Merely by holding that they are not entitled, or defendant is to be heard before passing the order would not be right, as a reasoned and considered order would have to be passed either allowing or rejecting the said request for grant of an ad interim order of temporary injunction prior to issuance of notice. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE LB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36