- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9938 WP No. 102085 of 2025 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. 102085 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. ANASAVVA W/O MUTTAPPA BANKAD AGE 49 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O RAMAPUR, TQ/DIST HAVERI 581110 2. MUTTAPPA S/O HANUMANTAPPA BANKAD AGE 59 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O RAMAPUR, TQ/DIST HAVERI 581110 3. MANJAPPA S/O MUTTAPPA BANKAD AGE 39 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O RAMAPUR, TQ/DIST HAVERI 581110 4. SANJEEV S/O MUTTAPPA BANKAD AGE 37 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O RAMAPUR, TQ/DIST HAVERI 581110 5. HANUMANTAPPA S/O MUTTAPPA BANKAD AGE 35 YEARS OCC AGRICULTURE Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9938 WP No. 102085 of 2025 R/O RAMAPUR, TQ/DIST HAVERI 581110 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIJAYENDRA BHIMAKKANAVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MUTTAPPA S/O PARAMESHAPPA JANGALI AGE 56 YEARS OCC AGRICULTURE R/O RAMAPUR, TQ/DIST HAVERI 581110 2. SMT GIRIJAVVA W/O MUTTAPPA JANGALI AGE 49 YEARS OCC AGRICULTURE R/O RAMAPUR, TQ/DIST HAVERI 581110 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIDYASHANKAR G. DALWAI., ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 19-02-2025 IN ALLOWING I.A.NO.11 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 2A OF CPC PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HAVERI IN O.S.NO.138/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE I.A.NO.11, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9938 WP No. 102085 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 19.02.2025 in allowing the I.A.No.11 filed under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC passed by the Court of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Haveri in O.S.No.138/2021 vide Annexure-J and consequently dismiss the I.A.No.11, in the interest of justice and equity. ii. Pass any other order/relief, that this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the nature and circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice and equity. 2. An order of injunction having been granted against the petitioner in O.S.No.138/2021 alleging that the said order has been violated in application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC came to be filed along with an application for police protection to implement the interim orders, which having been granted, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the impugned order dated 19.02.2025. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9938 WP No. 102085 of 2025 3. On enquiry with learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether the order of injunction has been challenged by filing necessary appeal, he submits that no such appeal has been filed. Since the petitioner was under the impression that the said injunction order does not infringe upon the property of the petitioners and insofar as the description of the property which had been mentioned in the application, the petitioners have no claim over the same. 4. It is only on account of the application filed under Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC for initiation of contempt as also for police protection that the petitioner appending that the respondent may interfere with the construction being carried out by the petitioners in their own property that the petitioner is before this Court challenging the said order. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9938 WP No. 102085 of 2025 5. Essentially what the petitioner seeks to achieve is clarification as regards the applicability of the order and the property to which it applies for. The petitioners can always seek for such clarification from either the trial Court or by filing an appeal in the First Appellate Court without exhausting those remedies which are available, the petitioner’s writ petition cannot be entertained to give such a clarification. 6. In that view of the matter, the writ petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail of such legal remedies as may be available for the petitioner. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61