- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53592 WP No. 33462 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 33462 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MR. S K ADAM PASHA S/O MR.S.M. MOHAMMED KHALEEQ AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.7/A, 3RD C CROSS NAGAMMA LAYOUT, KAVALBYRASANADRA R.T. NAGAR POST BENGLAURU - 560 032. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SYED NASEERUDDIN.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. SYED GHOUSE AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS S/O LATE ABDUL LATHIF R/AT NO.399, 2ND CROSS 1ST MAIN, R.K. HEGDE NAGAR S.R.K. NAGAR POST BENGALURU -560 077 2. MRS. SHAKEELA BEGUM, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS W/O LATE SYED MURTUZA SHAH R/AT NO. G2, COOKSON ROAD NEAR RICHARDS PARK RICHARDS TOWN, ST. THOMAS TOWN POST, BENGALURU -560 084. 3. MRS. MASIHA BEGUM, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS D/O LATE SYED MURTUZA SHAH Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53592 WP No. 33462 of 2025 R/AT NO. G2, COOKSON ROAD NEAR RICHARDS PARK RICHARDS TOWN, ST. THOMAS TOWN POST, BENGALURU -560 084. 4. MR. SYED ABID, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O LATE SYED MURTUZA SHAH RESIDING AT NO. G2, COOKSON ROAD NEAR RICHARDS PARK RICHARDS TOWN, ST. THOMAS TOWN POST, BENGALURU -560 084. 5. MR.SYED NASIR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O LATE SYED MURTUZA SHAH R/AT NO. G2, COOKSON ROAD NEAR RICHARDS PARK RICHARDS TOWN, ST. THOMAS TOWN POST, BENGALURU -560 084. 6. MR.SYED MANSOOR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O LATE SYED MURTUZA SHAH R/AT NO. G2, COOKSON ROAD NEAR RICHARDS PARK RICHARDS TOWN, ST. THOMAS TOWN POST, BENGALURU -560 084. 7. MR.BUQARI SYED NADEEM AHMED AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS S/O. LATE.SRI. SYED RASOOL AHMED R/AT NO.399, 2ND CROSS, 1ST MAIN R.K. HEGDE NAGAR, S.R.K.NAGAR POST, BENGALURU -560 077. 8. SMT.TASNIYA TABASSUM, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS W/O. SRI. BUQARI SYED NADEEM AHMED - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53592 WP No. 33462 of 2025 S/O. LATE. SRI. SYED RASOOL AHMED RESIDING AT NO.399, 2ND CROSS, 1ST MAIN R.K. HEGDE NAGAR, S.R.K. NAGAR POST, BENGALURU -560 077. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.10.2025 PASSED BY THE LXXIII Addl. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, M.H. Unit, BENGALURU (CCH No.74) ON LA NO. 1 FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC IN O.S NO.26074/2025. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff. 2. Parties shall be referred as per their ranking before the trial Court. 3. This petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff being aggrieved by non-passing of the exparte ad-interim order on the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC. The trial Court has merely stated in the impugned order that the petitioner/plaintiff has not made - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53592 WP No. 33462 of 2025 out prima facie ground for considering the prayer sought in the application filed under Order - XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC and ordered issuance of emergent notice with suit summons to the respondents/defendants. 4. It is the grievance of learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff that the trial Court has not applied its mind and has mechanically issued emergent notice without considering the material placed on record including the sale deed and possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and interference of defendants in the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is also contended that the learned trial Judge has refrained from passing any reasoned order and has merely stated that plaintiff has not made out prima facie ground for considering the prayer. Whereas, plaintiff has made several averments in the plaint and so also in the affidavit accompanying the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC as to the need and urgency for grant of an ad-interim order of Temporary - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53592 WP No. 33462 of 2025 Injunction and that the issuance of notice would cause delay and severe hardship, damage and injury to the person and property of the plaintiff, including the threat of dispossession of the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. Having not considered all these aspects, the trial Court has committed an error and illegality and therefore seeks to set aside the impugned order and consequently to grant an ad interim order of Temporary Injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants have not yet appeared before the trial Court. It is submitted that the next date of hearing in the original suit proceedings is on 5.1.2026. 5. This Court does not find any need or necessity to issue notice to the respondents/defendants for the reason that this Court is not inclined to pass any favourable order to the petitioner/plaintiff, which would affect the rights of the defendants. This Court is inclined to remit the matter back to the trial Court for reconsideration of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53592 WP No. 33462 of 2025 application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC for adjudication afresh in accordance with law. 6. While considering the application for an ad-interim order of Temporary Injunction, the trial Court is obligated and duty bound to follow the procedure contemplated in law and so also the provisions of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and the provision of Order XXXIX Rule 3 and the proviso thereto. 7. This Court in the case of Karnataka State Cricket Association -vs- Mr. Shashidhara A.V in Writ Petition No.33725 of 2025 (GM-CPC) decided on 17th November 2025 has laid down certain guidelines as to how the trial Court needs to consider an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC. 8. It is needless to mention that the trial Court is obligated and duty bound to pass a reasoned order on the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC rather than merely saying that the plaintiff has not made - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53592 WP No. 33462 of 2025 out ground for consideration of prayer sought in I.A. No.1 and that it is just and reasonable to give an opportunity of hearing to the opposite party. 9. The proviso to Order XXXIX Rules 3 contemplates grant of an ad interim order of Temporary Injunction prior to issuance of notice and under extraordinary exceptional circumstances, the trial Court is obligated and duty bound to pass orders by providing reasons and it cannot merely say that plaintiff has not made out prima facie ground and that the defendants required to be heard, which is not the procedure to be followed. So also it is not the intention or the spirit of the Legislature while making the proviso to Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC. 10. For the reasons stated above, I pass the following: O R D E R i) The matter is remitted back to the trial Court to reconsider the application filed under Order XXXIX - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53592 WP No. 33462 of 2025 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC afresh and pass reasoned order either granting or rejecting the interim order of Temporary Injunction. ii) The trial Court shall consider the application on its merits including the averments made in the affidavit accompanying the application and so also the documents produced alongwith the plaint and the urgency shown by the petitioner/plaintiff and pass reasoned order in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Karnataka State Cricket Association -vs- Mr. Shashidhara A.V in Writ Petition No.33725 of 2025 (GM-CPC) decided on 17th November 2025, in accordance with law. iii) Learned counsel for petitioner is at liberty to advance the matter before the trial Court. On such application being made, the trial Court shall accept and allow such application and consider I.A. No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53592 WP No. 33462 of 2025 CPC in O.S. No.26074/2025 and pass suitable orders on or before 19th December 2025. iv) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the application or the main matter. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE GSS List No.: 3 Sl No.: 5