- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15839 WP No. 103547 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 103547 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. LAXMAN S/O MADAPPA @ MAHADEV BAJANTRI, AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KALLAL, SHEDBALA-591 223, TQ. KAGAWAD, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. SRI. AJAY HARI CHAWAN, AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HUGAR-MANGALASOLI ROAD, NEAR BVB COLLEGE, HUGAR KURDRA, TQ. KAGAWAD-591 223, DIST. BELAGAVI. 3. SRI. MANISH HARI CHAWAN, AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HUGAR-MANGALASOLI ROAD, NEAR BVB COLLEGE, HUGAR KURDRA, TQ. KAGAWAD-591 223, DIST. BELAGAVI. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA A. MALI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. GAJANAN BABU JAYAGONDE, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KALLAL, SHEDBAL-591 315, TQ. KAGWAD, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. SRI. CHANNAPPA BABU JAYAGONDE, AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KALLAL, SHEDBAL-591 315, TQ. KAGWAD, DIST. BELAGAVI. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.12.05 10:52:30 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15839 WP No. 103547 of 2025 3. SRI. HONNAPPA BABU JAYAGONDE, AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KALLAL, SHEDBALA-591 315, TQ. KAGWAD, DIST. BELAGAVI. 4. SRI. MAHANTESH CHANNAPPA JAYAGONDE, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KALLAL, SHEDBAL-591 315, TQ. KAGWAD, DIST. BELAGAVI. 5. SRI. SANTHOSH CHANNAPPA JAYAGONDE, AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KALLAL, SHEDBAL-591 315, TQ. KAGWAD, DIST. BELAGAVI. 6. SRI. RAVINDRA RAMACHANDRA DATTAWADKAR, AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHEDBAL, TQ. KAGWAD-591 315, DIST. BELAGAVI. 7. SRI. VINOD SADASHIVA NANEKAR, AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHEDBAL, TQ. KAGWAD-591 315, DIST. BELAGAVI. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; NOTICE TO R6 IS SERVED; NOTICE TO R7 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 28/04/2025 PASSED BY CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KAGAWAD IN O.S. NO.188/2024 IN SO FAR AS I.A. NO.6 (THEREBY ALLOWING THE I.A. NO.6 FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC) VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND CONSEQUENTLY REJECT THE I.A. NO.6 FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF VIDE ANNEXURE-F. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15839 WP No. 103547 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed assailing the order dated 28.04.2025 passed by the Civil Judge, Kagawad in O.S.No.188/2004. 2. In terms of the said order, I.A.No.6 filed by the respondents No.1 to 5, who were the plaintiffs in the said suit is allowed and Court directed police protection to the plaintiffs in whose favour there was an order of temporary injunction. In terms of the said order of temporary injunction, defendants No.1 to 3/petitioners No.1 to 3 were restrained from obstructing the plaintiffs from use of the suit road. 3. The plaintiffs claim that the suit road is passing through Survey No.74 and 73/14 of Shedbala village, Taluk:Kagawad, District:Belgaum. The aforementioned two properties belong to the defendants. 4. The defendants have filed Miscellaneous Appeal before the Appellate Court in MA No.22/2024 on the file of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15839 WP No. 103547 of 2025 Principal Senior Civil Judge, Athani and said appeal is still pending. 5. When the appeal was pending before the Senior Civil Judge, the application seeking police protection at I.A.No.6 was filed on 27.09.2024 before the Civil Judge, Karwar. The interim order providing police protection was passed on 28.04.2025. The present Writ Petition is filed on 04.06.2025. In the present Writ Petition the petitioners have questioned the order granting police protection. 6. This Court vide order dated 24.06.2025 granted stay order staying the operation of the order dated 01.08.2024 passed on IA No.2 and also the order dated 28.04.2025 passed on IA No.6. It is relevant to notice that the petitioner has not challenged the order at IA No.2 dated 01.08.2024 passed on an application seeking temporary injunction. That order was not subject matter of challenge before this Court. However, it was subject matter of challenge before the Appellate Court where the appeal is still pending. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15839 WP No. 103547 of 2025 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the order granting police protection cannot be passed mechanically and has to be passed only in exceptional cases if it is pointed out that the defendants against whom the injunction order is passed are intentionally violating the injunction order. It is his submission that the plaintiffs are trying to form a road with the aid of the police pursuant to the order passed on IA No.6 and police attempted to form a road in the suit land pursuant to the order on IA.No.6 and for this reason the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court seeking stay of the operation of the order. 8. To the pointed question put by this Court as to why the stay of the operation of the order on IA.No.2 is sought despite the appeal being pending before the Appellate Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that since no interim order was granted by the Appellate Court, the petitioners have sought the interim stay of the order at Annexure D, which was not assailed before this Court. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15839 WP No. 103547 of 2025 9. The Court has perused the grounds for interim relief. The ground would read as under: “It is submitted that the Court below is proceeding with the matter on day to day basis. And if interim order as prayed is not granted, the very petitioner will be put to grave hardship and no purpose of filing of the above petition will survive, as such interim order as prayed may kindly be granted.” 10. The Court is not convinced with the submission made as to why the stay of operation of the order at Annexure-D which is not under challenge is sought before this Court. The petitioners do not make any statement in the petition that they have not questioned the order at Annexure- D and for what reason they are seeking stay of Annexure-D order at IA No.2 passed by the Trial Court is not stated. 11. Be that as it may, the question before the Court is whether the Trial Court is justified in granting the order of police protection. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15839 WP No. 103547 of 2025 12. It is not in dispute that temporary injunction order is operating against the petitioners. The temporary injunction order restrained the defendants/petitioners from interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession and use of the suit road which according to the plaintiffs is running in Survey No.74 and Survey No.73/14 as referred to above. 13. It is noticed from the order passed by the Trial Court that, it has referred to two registered sale deeds executed in favour of petitioners. Those sale deeds are dated 10.06.2016 and 20.09.2023. These two sale deeds prima facie reveal existence of road passing through Survey No.74 and Survey No.73/14 on the eastern side. 14. This being the position the Court is of the view that prima facie case is made out relating to the existence of the road. 15. It is also noticed that the learned predecessor of this Court had passed an order appointing the Assistant Director of Land Records to inspect the spot and to report. The - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15839 WP No. 103547 of 2025 Assistant Director of Land Records has inspected the spot and has submitted the report and is also present before the Court. 16. To the pointed question put by the Court on the roads indicated in the report submitted by the Assistant Director of Land Revenue it is submitted that the road in Survey Nos.74 and 73/14 as indicated in the sketch are in existence. In addition to that, Assistant Director of Land Rrecords would also submit that one more road found in Survey No.73/1 to 13 shown in the green colour in the sketch is also in existence. 17. From the report, it is prima facie established that the road in Survey Nos.74 and 73/14 are in existence and same is corroborated by the registered sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners, which is not disputed at this stage. 18. It is noticed that the petitioners before this Court are vehemently opposing the existence of the road. As already noticed, the appeal before the Appellate Court is still pending consideration and Appellate Court has not stayed the operation - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15839 WP No. 103547 of 2025 of the injunction order granted in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. 19. Under these circumstances one can certainly assume that there is serious obstruction by the petitioners in plaintiffs making use of the suit road for which there is an order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. To avoid further complications, the Trial Court has passed an order granting police protection. 20. The Court is the view that the Trial Court is justified in passing the said order. Though learned counsel for the petitioners would refer to 2 complaints filed by the petitioners pursuant to the stay order granted by this Court, to contend that the plaintiffs have formed the road with the aid of the police after obtaining the order on IA No.6, the Court is of the view that the contents of the complaints do not indicate that the police have formed the road. At the most one can conclude that the police have fixed the boundary stone, probably to caution the plaintiffs not to cross the boundary stones fixed at a distance of 12 feet on the edge of the alleged road. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15839 WP No. 103547 of 2025 21. Learned counsel for the petitioners would also refer to the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sri Balakrishna K.P. and others vs. Sri.K.P. Puttaraju and others1, to contend that the power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure granting police protection should be exercised sparingly and only in deserving cases and would urge that no such case is made out. 22. For the reasons already recorded, the Court is of the view that the plaintiffs are justified in moving the application for seeking police protection given the fact that the defendants who have filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in the absence of any stay order granted by the First Appellate Court are asserting that no such road is in existence. The photographs produced by both the parties would indicate that the one party is seriously disputing the existence of the road and the other is seriously asserting the existence of the road. 1 WP No.51712/2019 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15839 WP No. 103547 of 2025 23. Under these circumstances, the order granting police protection cannot be said to be erroneous to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction Article 227 of Constitution of India. 24. Observations made in this order are tentative and are not final and same shall not influence the final disposal of the suit. 25. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CLK/GVP CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 57