- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9894 WP No. 105316 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.105316 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. ABDUL REHMAN S/O MODINSAB MULAGUND AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O KAMAAL BANGADI ONI, SAVANUR TQ. SAVANUR AND DIST. HAVERI-581118. 2. GULAM RASUL @ SIRAJ S/O MODINSAB MULAGUND AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O KAMAAL BANGADI ONI, SAVANUR TQ. SAVANUR AND DIST. HAVERI-581118. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NAVEEN CHATRAD, ADVOCATE) AND: MOHAMMED GOUSE S/O MODINSAB MULAGUND AGE. 75 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O KAMAAL BANGADI ONI, SAVANUR TQ. SAVANUR AND DIST. HAVERI-581118. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SADIK KANVI AND AMREEN H.S., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED. 04-07-2024 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI, IN M.A. NO. 16/2024 CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED. 20-04-2024 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIGGOAN, SITTING AT SAVANUR IN O.S. NO. 09/2024 ON I.A. NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B AND Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9894 WP No. 105316 of 2024 CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS IA NO. 1, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: A) Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of certiorari quash the impugned order dated. 04-07-2024 passed by the 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, in M.A. No. 16/2024 confirming the order dated. 20-04-2024 passed by the senior civil judge and JMFC, Shiggoan, sitting at Savanur in O.S. No. 09/2024 on I.A. No. 1 vide Annexure-A and b and consequently dismiss IA No. 1. B) Issue any other writ or order or direction which this Hon’ble court deems fit under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 2. A suit in O.S.No.9 of 2024 had been filed by the respondent herein. Wherein, an application in I.A.No.1 under order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) for injunction restraining defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9894 WP No. 105316 of 2024 suit schedule property was filed by the plaintiff, which came to be allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 20.04.2024. An appeal having been filed before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Haveri in M.A.No.16/2024, the said appeal came to be dismissed by an order dated 04.07.2024. It is challenging the same, the petitioners are before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that one of the documents that has been relied upon by the plaintiff i.e. respondent herein is the Apsat Vatni Patra of the year 1997, which has been set- aside by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 05.02.2024 and as such, the said document could not have been considered either by the trial Court or the First Appellate Court. On that basis, he submits that the temporary - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9894 WP No. 105316 of 2024 injunction granted by both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court is required to be set-aside. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the papers, what can be seen is that, the injunction order sought for was for restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court have categorically come to a conclusion that it is the plaintiff, who is in possession and cultivating the property. If the petitioners, who are the defendants therein, have any right in the property and their rights are crystallized in the suit which is pending, then their interests would always be protected by directing the plaintiff to maintain accounts as regards the agriculture activities carried out in respect of the subject property and in the event of the defendants succeeding, the amounts as maintained in the accounts could be directed to be - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9894 WP No. 105316 of 2024 paid to the petitioners. This being so, since the subject matter of the suit is an agricultural property where agricultural activities are to be carried out, vacating the order of injunction could result in the property not being used for agricultural purposes, thereby depriving both the plaintiff and the defendants of their respective rights in the said property, which are yet to be determined in the pending suit. 5. With the above observation, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3