- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6423 WP No. 147149 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 147149 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MOHAMMAD HUSEN S/O. UMMAR FARUK ASKERI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O: SUSGADI, BHATKAL TALUK-581320, DIST: U.K. 2. RAGHAVENDRA S/O. MADEV NAIK AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O: NH-66, VENKATAPUR, BHATKAL TALUK-581320, DIST: U.K. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. J.S.SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MAIMUNNA FHARAHAT W/O. MOHAMMAD SADIK DAMUDI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O: MAINROAD, BHATKAL, TQ: BHATKAL-581320, DIST: U.K. 2. MOHAMMAD SADI DAMUDI S/O. ABDUL HAMEED DAMUNDI, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BHATKAL, TQ: BHATKAL-581320, DIST: U.K. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.R.GUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER ON IA NO.3 IN O.S.NO.83/2018 DATED 5.1.2019 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE BHATKAL AT BHATKAL THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-A AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2019 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BHATKAL IN MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.4/2019, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-B AND ETC. Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.04.19 10:41:35 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6423 WP No. 147149 of 2020 THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The defendants have filed the present captioned petition challenging the concurrent orders of the Courts below in granting injunction in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs and thereby rejecting the present petitioners/defendants from interfering with respondents/plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. These concurrent orders are under challenge. 2. The primary contention addressed in the captioned petition by the defendants is that both the Courts without examining the pleadings in the written statement have proceeded to grant injunction. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners pointing out the stand taken by the defendants at para 18 of the written statement contends that defendants are not at all asserting any possessory rights over the suit schedule - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6423 WP No. 147149 of 2020 property. They have further admitted in unequivocal terms that they are not at all in possession and have further stated that one Nagaraj S/o Masthappa Nayak and Smt. Hema W/o Nagaraj Nayak are in possession of the suit schedule property. Citing these averments at para 18, defendants would contend that learned Judge could not have granted an injunction when there is no claim by the defendants and there is no interference. Therefore, said orders are under challenge. 3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs has vehemently argued that the present petitioners were indeed parties to the earlier suit filed in O.S. No. 38/1993. It is contended that the suit schedule property involved in the present proceedings was also the subject matter in the earlier suit. The learned counsel submits that in the said earlier proceedings, the Court had rendered a categorical and unequivocal finding of fact that the suit schedule property is not a private property but constitutes an open space reserved for public use, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6423 WP No. 147149 of 2020 specifically comprising a drainage system and water supply infrastructure. In view of this finding, it is submitted that the present petitioners, having been parties to the said earlier suit and fully aware of the nature of the property, have unlawfully proceeded to alienate the suit schedule property to third parties, namely, one Nagaraj and Hema. Such alienation, according to the plaintiffs, is not only impermissible in law but also amounts to interference with their lawful possession, thereby justifying their prayer for an injunction. 4. It is a well-settled principle of law that the grant of an ad interim injunction is not a matter of course but is governed by certain foundational prerequisites. Among these, a critical requirement is that the plaintiff must prima facie establish, through cogent material, that there is either actual interference by the defendants or a real and imminent likelihood of injury to their legal rights. Mere apprehensions, unsupported by prima facie evidence, cannot form the basis for such an extraordinary and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6423 WP No. 147149 of 2020 equitable relief. In the present case, a plain reading of paragraph 18 of the written statement reveals that the defendants have unequivocally disclaimed any possession or assertion of possessory or proprietary rights over the suit schedule property. In the absence of any positive act of interference by the defendants, or any material on record indicating such threat, the requisite ingredients for grant of an ad interim injunction are conspicuously absent. Consequently, the orders passed by the Courts below granting injunction against the petitioners are contrary to the settled principles governing injunctive relief and are therefore liable to be set aside. 5. Upon careful consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that both the Courts below have committed an error in granting the order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. A fundamental requirement for the grant of an interim injunction is that the plaintiffs must prima facie establish - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6423 WP No. 147149 of 2020 interference by the defendants with their peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. However, a reading of paragraph 18 of the written statement filed by the defendants reveals a clear and unambiguous stand. The defendants have categorically stated that they are neither in possession of the suit schedule property nor are they asserting any possessory rights or title over the same. This express disclaimer by the defendants significantly weakens the plaintiffs’ case for interim relief against them. 6. In light of the stand taken by the defendants in paragraph 18 of their written statement, wherein they have expressly denied possession or any claim over the suit schedule property, this Court is constrained to hold that the Courts below have erred in restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession. The injunction orders passed by both the Courts are therefore legally unsustainable and are liable to be set aside. However, it is clarified that nothing contained in this - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6423 WP No. 147149 of 2020 order shall preclude or obstruct the respondents/plaintiffs from initiating appropriate legal proceedings or seeking suitable remedies against the persons named in paragraph 18 of the written statement, including Nagaraj and Hema, if so advised and warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. With these observations, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed; (ii) The impugned order dated 05.01.2019 passed on I.A.No.3 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S.No.83/2018 as per Annexure-A and the order dated 21.12.2019 passed by Appellate Court in M.A.No.4/2019 as per Annexure-B are hereby set aside. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16