- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51270 WP No. 26943 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 26943 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. SHASHI PRABHA SINGH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, WIFE OF LATE. OM PRAKASH SACHAN, R/AT KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE, YASHAVANTAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 092. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANAND.M.SHOLAPURMATH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VENKATESH.D AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O LATE DASAPPA, RESIDING AT NO 2. ANJANA NAGARA, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, VISHWANEEDAM POST, BENGALURU-91. 2. RAJANNA.R. S/O LATE MUNIRANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT 13, 5TH CROSS, Digitally signed by S NOORUNNISABEGUM Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51270 WP No. 26943 of 2025 KATRIGUPPE EAST, CHANNAMMANA KERE ACHKATTU, BENGALURU-65. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.08.2025, PASSED ON I.A. NO.1 IN O.S. NO. 917/2025, IN ANNEXURE-A, REFUSING TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AND FURTHER GRANT THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENT ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER 1. The present petition has been filed seeking to challenge an order dated 13.08.2025 in O.S.No.917/2025 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru (“hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’). 2. By the Impugned Order, the learned Trial Court has held that the petitioner/plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case for the grant of an ex parte injunction and has, accordingly, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51270 WP No. 26943 of 2025 directed the issuance of emergent notice to the defendants through the Court and by registered post acknowledgment due. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that, as on date, the defendants have not been served. He states that he is in the process of taking out newspaper publication for their service. 4. In addition learned counsel contends that the learned Trial Court has not provided any reasons for not allowing the ex parte injunction and has passed a direction that the Court is of an opinion that the petitioner/plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case. 5. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff that his client is the owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of three registered sale deeds dated 22.02.2012, 22.02.2012, and 18.05.2013. Learned counsel further submits that these registered sale deeds have been filed along with the list of documents before the Trial Court and are also set out at page 25 of the paper book. 6. He submits that since the date of his purchase he has been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51270 WP No. 26943 of 2025 scheduled property, however the defendants have recently started disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioner/plaintiff. He submits that even though the registered sale deed has been produced the Trial Court has declined the same and has not granted any injunction to the petitioner/plaintiff. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff has taken us through the plaint as well as through the sale deed dated 07.08.2025 in respect of suit schedule property which is as under: “SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of property bearing its Site no.5,6,7,8,9 Khata No.695/80/3/136 formed in converted land bearing its Sy No.80(New Sy.No.80/3) vide conversion order No.ALN(NY)SR 5/2010-11, situated at Kodigehalli Village, Yeshavanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, totally measuring 7,876 Sq.fts. and bounded on East by : Site No.4, West by: Site No.10 North by: Road South by: Sy No.81” 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff has stated to be the owner of the suit schedule property in terms of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51270 WP No. 26943 of 2025 registered sale deed. Thus his prima facie title has been made out. However the impugned order sets out that the petitioner/plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case and has thus declined to issue an ex parte injunction. 9. In addition, this Court agrees with the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff that for declining an injunction, findings must be given. 10. It is settled law that any order of a Court must contain findings. The Supreme Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta1 has held that it is the duty of the Court to ensure that reasons are provided in the order so as to introduce clarity in the order indicating the application of mind thereby avoiding arbitrariness in the decision. It was held that the failure to give reasons amounts to a denial of justice. The relevant paragraph extract reproduced below: 11. It is settled law that reasons must be given for every judgment passed by a Court. The Supreme Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta has held that it is the duty of the Court to ensure that reasons are provided in the order 1 (2009) 12 SCC 609 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51270 WP No. 26943 of 2025 so as to introduce clarity in the order indicating the application of mind thereby avoiding arbitrariness in the decision. It was held that the failure to give reasons amounts to a denial of justice. The relevant extract is below:- "8. "5. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief. in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the [High Court's judgment] not sustainable. 6. Even in respect of administrative orders. Lord Denning. M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union [(1971) 2 QB 175: (1971) 2 WLR 742: (1971) 1 All ER 1148 (CA)] observed: (WLR p. 750 G). 'The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree [1974 ICR 120] it was observed: Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at.' Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51270 WP No. 26943 of 2025 the 'inscrutable face of the sphinx', it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reasons is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking-out. The inscrutable face of a sphinx is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance." [Emphasis supplied] 10.1 The proposition of law that reasoning is required to be given in judicial pronouncements and by authorities, even for quasi-judicial decisions has been discussed in detail in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. & Anr. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors2. The relevant extract is set out below: "47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds: 2 (2010) 9 SCC 496 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51270 WP No. 26943 of 2025 (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi- judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51270 WP No. 26943 of 2025 virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision- making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision- making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision- making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51270 WP No. 26943 of 2025 makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37].) (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)], wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions". (0) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "due process"." [Emphasis supplied] 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the order of the Trial Court is without any finding and given the circumstances and the evidence produced of the plaintiff's title, the Court was required to examine the plaint as well as the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51270 WP No. 26943 of 2025 documents prior to passing the Impugned Order. This has clearly not been done. 12. In these circumstances, this Court deals apposite to set aside the Court order and with a direction to the learned Trial Court to examine the plaint and the documents and pass a reasoned speaking order on the prayer of the plaintiff for grant of an ex parte ad interim injunction. 13. The petition is allowed in the aforegoing terms. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: High Court of Karnataka