- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52209 WP No. 35488 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.35488 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: DHALITHA VIVIDHA GRAMODYOGA KAIGARIKA SAHAKARA SANGA NIYAMITHA (R) NO.46, 1ST MAIN ROAD REGISTERED UNDER THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT SAJJEPALYA, BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU-560 072 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY BHARATH G.R. S/O.DR.A.D.RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT NO.301, DWARAKA NAGAR BEML LAYOUT, NEAR R.R.NAGAR RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR-560 098 …PETITIONER (BY SRI M.S.SHYAM SUNDAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR DR.VANDANA P.L., ADVOCATE) AND: SAMATHA SAINIKA DAL SSD NO.164, 3RD FLOOR, B ROAD REGISTERED UNDER THE CO-PERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT 2ND CROSS, 6TH MAIN ROAD GANDHINAGAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK-560 009 REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT VENKATESHA SWAMY …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52209 WP No. 35488 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15.11.2025 PASSED IN O.S.NO.539/2025 (ANNEXURE- A) AS BEING ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO THE MANDATE OF ORDER XXXIX RULES 1 AND 2 OF CPC AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard Sri M.S.Shyam Sundar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Dr.Vandana P.L. for petitioner. 2. The present petition is filed by the plaintiff seeking the following reliefs: "a) Call for the records in O.S. No.539/2025 on the file of the Hon'ble Civil Judge & JMFC, Nelamangala; b) Quash the impugned order dated 15.11.2025 passed in O.S.No.539/2025 (Annexure-A), as being arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the mandate of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC; c) Issue a direction to the Hon'ble Civil Judge & JMFC, Nelamangala, to consider and dispose of I.A. No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52209 WP No. 35488 of 2025 and 2 on its merits by assigning reasons, within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court; d) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts & circumstances of this case in the interest of justice and equity." 3. Parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 4. The plaintiff has instituted a suit against the defendant seeking the following reliefs: "a. Granting Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendant, his agents, authorized persons, followers or anybody acting on his behalf or claiming through or under him from dispossessing or interfering with the peaceful possession of the Plaintiffs in respect of the suit Schedule property; b. Grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstance of this case; c. Grant costs including the cost of these proceedings to the plaintiffs in the interest of justice and equity." - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52209 WP No. 35488 of 2025 5. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff filed an application in IA.No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction prior to issuance of notice him. However, the trial Court without passing any order on the said application, has issued emergent notice on IA.No.1 and suit summons to the defendant returnable by 10.12.2025, which is questioned by the plaintiff in this petition. 6. This Court does not find any need or necessity to issue notice to the respondent-defendant for the reason that the petitioner is questioning the non-passing of the order on the application in IA.No.1, wherein the trial Court has neither passed any order for grant of an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction or for rejection of the same. 7. 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52209 WP No. 35488 of 2025 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 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 defendant. 8. 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. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52209 WP No. 35488 of 2025 Smt.Rajul Devi reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Kar 7191 while deciding the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. 9. It is brought to the notice of this Court that notice is yet to be served on the defendant. Therefore, it would be appropriate for this Court to direct the trial Court to decide the application either granting or rejecting an ad interim ex party order of temporary injunction by providing proper reasons. 10. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) This petition is allowed; ii) The matter is remitted back to the trial Court to consider the application in IA.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC filed in O.S.No.539/2025 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala and pass suitable orders by providing proper reasoning; - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52209 WP No. 35488 of 2025 iii) It is the discretion and liberty of the trial Court to either grant or reject an ad interim order. But nevertheless, the trial Court is duty bound and obligated to provide proper reasoning while doing so; iv) The learned trial Court Judge shall decide the application in accordance with the observations of the 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 and also the judgment of this Court in the case of Karnataka State Cricket Association vs. Mr.Shashidhara - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52209 WP No. 35488 of 2025 A.V. in WP.No.33725/2025 [Decided on 17.11.2025]; v) In case, the defendant appears and files his objections, if any, the trial Court feels it necessary to hear the defendant, shall consider his objections and pass suitable orders. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE LB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14