- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32740 WP No. 6575 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 6575 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MR. BLANNY D’SOUZA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O LATE JOHN BAPTIST D’SOUZA R/AT EZABELLA HOUSE MADANTHYAR, PARENKY VILLAGE BELTHANGADY DAKSHINA KANNADA – 574 224. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VIKRAM A.HUILGOL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI SRIKANTH N. V., ADVOCATE) AND: MR. RUDOLF VALERIAN D’SOUZA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS S/O LATE JOHN BAPTIST D’SOUZA R/AT EZABELLA HOUSE MADANATHYAR, PARENKY VILLAGE BELTHANGADY DAKSHINA KANNADA – 574 224 Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32740 WP No. 6575 of 2024 REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER MR. VICTOR MICHAEL D’SOUZA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS S/O LATE JOHN BAPTIST D’SOUZA R/AT AVILA HOUSE MIRANDA COMPOUND BENDURWELL, KANKANADY MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA – 575 002. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE AND SRI VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DTD 5.07.2022 ON IA NO. II/2022 IN OS NO. 13/2022 PASSED BY THE PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT BELTHANGADY VIDE ANNX-G. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner – defendant is before this Court calling in question an order dated 05.07.2022, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady, rejecting an - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32740 WP No. 6575 of 2024 application in I.A.No.II filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w. Section 151 of the CPC, seeking temporary injunction, in O.S.No.13/2022, a suit filed for declaration and injunction. 2. Heard Sri Vikram A. Huilgol, learned senior counsel for Sri Srikanth N.V., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Sandeep Lahiri and Sri Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. Brief facts of the case, germane, are as follows: A general power of attorney is executed by the respondent – plaintiff in favour of the petitioner – defendant concerning a property in Survey No.27, measuring 4 cents and in Survey No.5BP3, measuring 11 cents, both situated at Malady Village, Belthangady Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. It transpires that a settlement deed is executed on 07.01.2020, and later the petitioner executes a gift deed on 27.01.2021. The said gift deed comes to be challenged by the respondent - plaintiff in the subject suit in O.S.No.13/2022, seeking relief of declaration and injunction. The defendant has filed the written statement and the trial had progressed. At that point in time, the plaintiff filed the application – I.A.No.II before the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32740 WP No. 6575 of 2024 concerned Court, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w. Section 151 of the CPC. The said application comes to be answered in favour of the plaintiff, which is called in question by the present petitioner before the first appellate Court in M.A.No.19/2022, which comes to be dismissed on 22.06.2023. It is this order that is called in question by the petitioner in the subject petition. 4. A co-ordinate bench of this Court while issuing notice on 27.05.2024 had passed the following order: “The case of the petitioner is that the respondent, who is his brother executed a General Power of Attorney in his favour in respect of the suit schedule property and the petitioner has developed the same at his cost and has subsequently transferred the same into his name and thereafter leased a portion of the said property in favour of third parties and he is receiving the rents. It is further submitted that the trial Court erred in passing the impugned order wherein the petitioner is restrained from dispossessing the suit schedule property or from creating charge over the same in any manner whatsoever till disposal of the suit. However, during the course of the arguments, both the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent submitted that, pending disposal of the writ petition, if an order is passed directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit schedule property as on 05.07.2022 and the petitioner be permitted to collect the rents in respect of the suit schedule property regarding the portion which has - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32740 WP No. 6575 of 2024 already been leased, both the parties would be satisfied. Hence, the following: ORDER The parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the suit schedule property as it existed on 05.07.2022, till the next date of hearing and the petitioner shall be entitled to receive rentals in respect of the suit schedule property leased prior to 05.07.2022. At the request of learned counsel for the parties, call on 03.06.2024.” The co-ordinate bench had directed the petitioner to collect the rents of the suit schedule property, concerning the portion which has already been leased, while the lessee was not a party to the proceedings. As a matter of fact, lessee is not even a party to the suit. In that light, the order prima facie becomes un-implementable. 5. Sri Sandeep Lahiri, learned counsel for respondent – plaintiff on instructions would submit that the rents are no doubt been collected by him, who is using for repaying of the loan, which is taken for the purpose of construction of the property. He would submit that all the accounts would be - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32740 WP No. 6575 of 2024 submitted before the concerned Court, at the appropriate stage. The submission is placed on record. 6. In the aforesaid circumstance, learned counsel for the parties to the lis in unison would submit that if a direction is issued to the concerned Court to dispose the suit itself, within a time frame, as the issue lies in a narrow compass therein with regard to the gift deed that is executed in favour of the present petitioner, would suffice for the present. 7. Therefore, without interfering with the impugned orders of the concerned Courts, I deem it appropriate to direct the concerned Court to dispose of the suit itself, within an outer limit of six months, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 8. With the afore-made observations and the direction, the writ petition stands disposed. All contentions that are urged in the subject petition are permitted to be urged before the concerned Court at the relevant point in time. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32740 WP No. 6575 of 2024 In the light of the interim order subsisting in the subject petition as granted on 27.05.2024, I deem it appropriate to continue till the disposal of the suit. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6 CT:SS