- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48420 WP No. 33620 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 33620 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, D/O RAMAPPA AND LATE KRISHNAMMA 2. SMT. BASAMMA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS D/O RAMAPPA AND LATE KRISHNAMMA BOTH ARE R/AT NIMBEKAYIPURA VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK - 560 049. &PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIJAY KRISHNA BHAT M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. S VISHWANTAH IYER AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, S/O SUBRAMANYA IYER, R/AT DEVARAYASAMUDRA VILLAGE, AVANI HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 127. 2. SRI. V.D CHANDRU, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O LATE K C DASARATHARAMAIAH SETTY, Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48420 WP No. 33620 of 2025 R/AT NO. 47/1, K R PURAM EXTENSION, K R PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036. 3. SMT. V.LAKSHMIKALA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, W/O OF V.C. CHANDRU, D/O LATE RADHAKRISHNA SETTY R/AT NO. 47/1, K R PURAM EXTENSION, K R PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036. 4. SRI. RAMEGOWDA V, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA, R/AT BYRANDAHALLI VILLAGE, KYALANURU POST, VEMAGAL HOBLI, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130. 5. SRI. MAHESHA G, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O SRI. G. GOPAL, R/AT NO.38, SHRAVANI APARTMENT, 5TH CROSS, NARASIMHAIAH LAYOUT, VIJINAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 016. &RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 20.09.2025 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN OS.NO. 1773/2025 AS PER ANNX-D IN SO FAR AS DECLINING TO GRANT EXPARTE AD-INTERIM ORDER OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AND CONSEQUENTLY GRANT AN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48420 WP No. 33620 of 2025 ORDER OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AS PRAYED IN I.A.NO.2 AT ANNX-C TILL THE DISPOSAL OF THE SAME 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 the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 2. This petition is filed by the plaintiffs in OS.No.1773/2025. The suit came to be filed by the plaintiffs for relief of declaration and permanent injunction. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff has filed IA.No.1/2025 seeking an order to restrain the defendants from interfering or trespassing into the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and IA.No.2/2025 is filed for a direction to the defendants to not alienate or encumber the suit schedule property, till disposal of the suit. 3. This Court does not find the need or necessity to issue notice to the respondents, who are defendants before the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48420 WP No. 33620 of 2025 Trial Court for the reason that before the Trial Court they have not been served notice or summons yet though it is issued. 4. The order in question is non issuance of an ad- interim temporary injunction prior to issuance of notice. The plaintiff has filed the suit as stated earlier for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction in which he has filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the CPC' for short) to grant an ad- interim order of temporary injunction prior to issuance of notice to the defendants for the reason that there is an immediate threat of the defendants trying to interfere and trespass into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs' suit schedule property. 5. This petition is restricted to IA.No.2, wherein the plaintiffs have sought an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property. After hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, the Trial Court has issued emergent notice on IA.Nos.1/2025 and 2/2025, suit summons to the defendants. It has not passed any order for grant or rejection of the ad-interim relief sought - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48420 WP No. 33620 of 2025 for temporary injunction. Since this petition is restricted to IA.No.2/2025 for direction to the defendants to not to alienate the suit schedule property, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the Trial Court to consider the application and pass a reasoned order on the said application rather than merely issuing notice without any proper reasoning in the impugned order. 6. When an application is filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, it is the obligation of the Trial Court to pass an order either grant or reject the ad-interim order, prior to issuance of notice. The same has not been done in the present case on hand. This petition is entertained in view of there being no proper reasoning or finding by the Trial Court while disposing of the matter. 7. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of KISHORE KUMAR KHAITAN Vs. PRAVEEN KUMAR SINGH1, a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable in case the Trial Court has not performed 1 (2006) 3 SCC 312 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48420 WP No. 33620 of 2025 its obligatory duty as per law. Accordingly, this petition is maintainable and same is taken up for consideration. 8. It is relevant to mention that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the SHIV KUMAR CHADHA Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.2 has clearly laid down that the rules and guidelines as to how an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC is to be entertained and dealt with while granting or rejecting an ad-interim order of temporary injunction. The same has not been done in the present case, as merely the Court has ordered issuance of notice. 9. When the Trial Court is dealing with an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, a duty is cast upon the Trial Court and it is an obligation and not an option for the Trial Court to pass an order of either grant or rejection and while doing so, the Trial Court is obliged to pass an order by providing proper reasoning as to why it is either granted or rejected prior to issuance of notice to the defendants, which is 2 (1993) 3 SCC 161 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48420 WP No. 33620 of 2025 provided in the proviso to Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC, which is included in the 1977 Amendment to CPC. Under the circumstances, the Trial Court has committed an irregularity in not passing any such order and rather issued emergent notice on IA.No.2. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to interfere with the impugned order. 10. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the application now which is sought to be pressed on IA.No.2 is not to alienate or encumber the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit. Several averments are made by the petitioners in the affidavit annexed to the application stating that the defendants have entered into a fraudulent transaction in respect of suit schedule property, which belongs to the plaintiffs and they have inherited the same and that defendants No.2 and 3 have created and concocted the GPA of the parents of the plaintiffs and misused the same. All these aspects would have to be dealt with by the Trial Court, while dealing with the application and pass suitable orders for either grant or rejection of the ad-interim order of temporary injunction. It is submitted that though notice was - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48420 WP No. 33620 of 2025 ordered to the defendants on this application, it has not yet been served. 11. Under the circumstances, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is disposed of. (ii) The matter is remitted to the Trial Court to dispose of the application IA.No.2 filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC in accordance with law and in accordance to the observations made by this Court so also in accordance to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court. (iii) In the meanwhile, since there is a threat of alienation, till the application is decided by the Trial Court, both the parties shall maintain an order of status-quo with regard to suit schedule property under Sy.No.52/162 (Old No.52) measuring 2 acres situated at Nimbekayipura Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru. (iv) It is needless to mention that the Trial Court shall deal with the application without being influenced by the order passed by this Court, which is a temporary measure, till the disposal of the application by the Trial Court either - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48420 WP No. 33620 of 2025 before the notice is received and if notice is received after the objections, if any filed by the defendant. (v) The application shall be disposed of on the next date of hearing i.e., on 29.11.2025. SD/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1