- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8516 WP No. 104392 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 104392 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. SANNAPPA S/O. MADIWALAPPA HAIBATTI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURAL WORK, R/O. KADROLLI, TQ: KITTUR, DIST: BELAGAVI-591153. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. I.Y. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. RAMESH S/O. MADIWALAPPA HAIBATTI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURAL WORK, R/O. #145, 80 FEET ROAD, MARIDI ROAD, ASHWARHNAGAR, BANGALORE-560094. 2. SRI. KHANDU S/O. MADIWALAPPA HAIBATTI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULRAL WORK, R/O. KADROLLI, TQ: KITTUR, DIST: BELAGAVI-591153. 3. SMT. NIMBAVVA W/O. MAHADEV MANDVE, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. UGARAKOD, TQ: KITTUR, DIST: BELAGAVI-591153. 4. SMT. GANGA R.B., AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. 482/A2ND CROSS, 8TH MAIN BSK, 1ST STAGE, 2ND BLOCK, HANUMANTHA NAGAR, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANASHANKAREI, BENGALURU-560050. 5. PREMA D/O. RAMAKRISHNA BAGEWADI, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. 482/A2ND CROSS, 8TH MAIN BSK, Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.07.19 12:48:36 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8516 WP No. 104392 of 2025 1ST STAGE, 2ND BLOCK, HANUMANTHA NAGAR, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANASHANKAREI, BENGALURU-560050. 6. SRI. PRADEEP S/O. RAMAKRISHNA BAGEWADI, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. 482/A2ND CROSS, 8TH MAIN BSK, 1ST STAGE, 2ND BLOCK, HANUMANTHA NAGAR, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANASHANKAREI, BENGALURU-560050. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28-06-2025 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAILHONGAL IN O.S. NO.4/2025 ON I.A. UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC DATED 28-6-2025 FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER FOR EXTENSION OF EX-PARTY ORDER I.E., ANNEXURE-H. B. AND CONSEQUENTLY, EXTEND THE EX-PARTY INTERIM ORDER DATED 8-01-2025 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAILHONGAL IN O.S. NO.4/2025 TILL DISPOSAL OF THE I.A. NO.1 ON MERIT BY THE TRAIL COURT AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner who was the plaintiff in O.S. No.4/2025. The suit came to be filed by the plaintiff for the relief of partition and separate possession against the respondents/defendants. During the pendency of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8516 WP No. 104392 of 2025 the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure to restrain defendant Nos.1 and 2 from alienating and creating charge over the suit schedule properties until disposal of the case. The trial Court upon hearing the petitioner/plaintiff allowed the application and granted temporary injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 and 2 from alienating the suit schedule properties in any manner till next date of hearing and the plaintiff was directed to comply with the Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC. Upon compliance, defendant Nos.1 and 2 appeared, filed vakalat through advocate which is reflected in the order sheet dated 07.02.2025 which reads ‘AAK advocate files vakalat for defendant No.1 and ACK advocate filed vakalat for defendant No.2 and sought time to file written statement and objections to I.A.’ and the case was adjourned by extending the interim order till next date of hearing and the plaintiff was directed to take steps for the order defendants. It is submitted by the petitioner/plaintiff that he had taken steps for service of notice to other unserved defendants before the trial Court. This being the state of affairs, the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8516 WP No. 104392 of 2025 petitioner filed an application for extension of the interim order which was granted earlier and extended time and again. This extension of interim order application came to be rejected on the ground that the planitiff had not taken any steps and paid process for issuance of notice to defendant Nos.3 to 6. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he had paid the process fee for issuance of notice to defendant Nos.3 to 6 on 28.06.2025. The trial Court without noticing the fact that the interim order was granted against defendant Nos.1 and 2, who were already represented before the trial Court through an advocate, the matter was adjourned for taking of steps to other defendants. Considering this aspect, the trial court rejected the application for extension of interim order which was granted earlier on the premise that the petitioner/plaintiff had not paid the process fee for issuance of notice to defendant Nos.3 to 6, due to which notice was not issued. Even if process fee was not paid, which according to the petitioner - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8516 WP No. 104392 of 2025 was paid, interim order could not have been refused to be extended as the defendant Nos.1 and 2 are already represented through their counsel. Interim order was not granted as against other defendants. It was restricted to defendant Nos.1 and 2. Under the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the trial court is without application of mind and same requires to be set aside. 3. There may not be a requirement for notice to the respondents for the reason that the present petition is filed for extension of interim order and notice to defendant Nos.3 to 6 is yet to be served and defendant Nos.1 and 2 have already filed vakalat and have filed objections to the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC who may be at liberty to agitate the same before the trial Court. 4. Accordingly, I pass the following ORDER i. This petition is allowed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8516 WP No. 104392 of 2025 ii. Exparte interim order granted by the trial Court and extended thereafter, shall be further extended till next date of hearing. iii. The respondents/defendants are at liberty to contest the said application and the trial Court shall pass suitable orders on hearing the defendants on appearance. No opinion is expressed on the merits of the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE kmv CT-MCK