- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5477 WP No. 100819 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 100819 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. VADDARA HULUGAPPA S/O. LATE SANNA DURUGAPPA, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 2. SRI. VADDARA SANNA HULUGAPPA S/O. LATE SANNA DURUGAPPA, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 3. SRI. VADDRA VEERABHADRAPPA S/O. LATE SANNA DURUGAPPA, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 4. SRI. VADDARA AMBANNA S/O. LATE SANNA DURUGAPPA, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 5. SRI. VADDARA TAYAMMA S/O. LATE SANNA DURUGAPPA, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, ALL ARE R/O: KONDANAYAKANAHALLI, TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: VIJAYANAGARA-583 201. … PETITIONERS (BY MISS. RANJITA G.ALAGAWADI, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. SREEKANTH KATTA S/O. NAGARAJ KATTA, AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS/AGRICULTURE, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5477 WP No. 100819 of 2025 R/O: 502, SRIDEVI NILAYA, PATEL NAGARA, NEXT TO TVS SERVICE STATION, HOSAPETE, TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-583 201. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HARSHA DESAI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR HEARING- INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Ms.Ranjita G.Alagawai., counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Harsh Desai., counsel for the respondent have appeared in person. 2. The caption Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 25.06.2024 passed by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Hosapete on I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.328/2023 vide Annexure-F and the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Hosapete in M.A.No.09/2024 vide Annexure-H and consequently allow the I.A.No.2. 3. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5477 WP No. 100819 of 2025 4. The short facts are these: The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction. The defendants filed written statement and resisted the suit claim. The plaintiffs filed an application in I.A.No.2 under Order 39 Rule 2 of CPC and prayed for an interim relief of temporary injunction. The Trial Court allowed the application. On appeal, the Appellate Court confirmed the order of the Trial Court. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court. 5. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 6. The issue revolves around a narrow compass and relates to the allowing of the application filed by the plaintiffs for the grant of interim relief of temporary injunction. As could be seen from the lis between the parties, the suit is one for injunction based on possession. The plaintiffs contended that they are the absolute owners and in possession of the suit schedule property as of the date of filing of the suit. It would be relevant to observe that the plaintiffs are required to prove their lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit property as - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5477 WP No. 100819 of 2025 of the date of filing of the suit. Based on material proof, the Trial Court held that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for the granted of interim relief of temporary injunction. The Trial Court also concluded that the plaintiffs have established the possession as of the date of the filing of the suit to grant the interim relief of temporary injunction. The right to injunction is based on a prima facie right. The plaintiffs claiming the relief of injunction must establish the breach of an obligation or infringement of a legal right. The Appellate Court has examined the evidence on record and re-appraised it. I am satisfied that it has been appreciated from the correct perspective. Further the findings by the court of facts are neither vitiated by non-consideration of relevant evidence nor there is an erroneous approach to the matter. I do not find any error in the finding of facts. Furthermore, both the Courts concurrently arrived at a finding of fact based on the material evidence on record. Needless to say, the grant of interim relief of temporary injunction is discretionary in nature. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court exercised the discretionary powers from the right perspective. Under such - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5477 WP No. 100819 of 2025 circumstances, the High Court exercising the power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India cannot reverse the concurrent findings under ordinary circumstances. Hence, I decline to interfere with the orders. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE RH,MRP LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 12.1