- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41611 WP No. 23318 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 23318 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI SOMASHEKHAR S/O LATE BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT RAGIMUDDANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK- 562 132. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRIRAMA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT YASHODHA V W/O MOHAN KUMAR DB, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT DEVARAYAPATNA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK- 562 132. 2. SMT SUSHMA W/O K V KARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, VISHWESHWARA EXTENSION, SALAGAME ROAD, HASSAN TOWN, HASSAN TALUK- 562 132. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.J.ANANDA, ADVOCATE C/R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE DATED 02.07.2025 PASSED IN M.A. NO.4/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT HASSAN., VIDE ANNEXURE-A., AND ETC. Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41611 WP No. 23318 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.1 undertakes to file vakalath for respondent No.2 who is none than the plaintiff No.2. 2. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.337/2024 which is filed by the respondents/plaintiffs. Parties shall be referred to as plaintiffs and defendant. 3. Plaintiffs filed a suit for decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, their men, agents, servants or any persons claiming through them, from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Along with the claim an application came to be filed under order 39 Rule - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41611 WP No. 23318 of 2025 1 and 2 of CPC in IA.No.2 seeking temporary injunction. The trial Court initially granted an Ad interim ex parte temporary injunction and after appearance of the defendant and on filing the objections and on hearing the rival contentions of both parties the application came to be allowed. 4. Aggrieved by the said order of temporary injunction in favour of plaintiffs, defendant preferred an appeal in MA.No.4/2025 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Hassan. Upon hearing the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the defendant and confirmed the order passed by the trial Court on the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. 5. The defendant is before this court in this writ petition challenging the said order passed by the appellate Court confirming the order of the trial Court upholding the orders on Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41611 WP No. 23318 of 2025 6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant that the petitioner/defendant had entered into an agreement of sale and he had filed the suit in O.S.No.154/2012 before the VII Additional Civil Judge and JMFC against his vendor Smt.Jayamma and her family members, seeking relief of specific performance of the contract. The said suit, however, came to be dismissed on 20.02.2024. After the dismissal of the said suit, Sri.G.C.Shivanna sold the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs through a registered sale deed dated 14.03.2024 thereby they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant that though the plaintiffs are not having any right over the suit schedule property, plaintiffs are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the defendant in the suit schedule property as the defendant was put in possession of the suit - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41611 WP No. 23318 of 2025 schedule property, after the agreement of sale entered into in his favour. 8. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant that the defendant has preferred Regular Appeal in RA.No.73/2024 against the dismissal of the suit for specific performance which is still pending adjudication and therefore the question of the plaintiffs claiming right over the suit schedule property and an order of injunction granted in their favour is not correct. It is illegal and arbitrary and the same requires to be set aside as the trial Court and the first appellate Court has not looked into these aspects of the matter that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by virtue of agreement of sale. Therefore he seeks to set aside the order of temporary injunction granted in favour of the plaintiffs. 9. Per contra, it is the case of the plaintiffs that originally the suit schedule property belonged to one - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41611 WP No. 23318 of 2025 Sri.Kalegowda and the said Kalegowda sold the suit schedule property to one Sri.S.S. Siddegowda by way of registered sale deed dated 11.09.1974. Thereafter, since Sri.S.S.Siddegowda died and the khata of the suit schedule property was changed in the name of his wife Smt. Jayamma. Thereafter, Smt. Jayamma and her family sold the suit schedule property to one Sri.G.C. Shivanna on 01.10.2011 through the registered sale deed and thereafter the khata has been changed accordingly to the said Sri.G.C. Shivanna. 10. It is the contention of learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the said Sri.G.C. Shivanna sold the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs by way of registered sale deed on 14.03.2024. Pursuant to that the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property so also the Katha has been changed in the name of the plaintiffs and they are enjoying the property as absolute owners and in peaceful possession of the same. Therefore, the trial Court has considered all - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41611 WP No. 23318 of 2025 these aspects and accordingly having found that there is no substance and truth in the statement made by the defendant granted an temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs upon hearing and thereafter upon the defendant filing the appeal, the same has been confirmed by the first appellate Court which is absolutely correct and the same does not call for interference. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the plaintiffs and learned counsel for the defendant and on perusal of the orders passed by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court, it is seen that the facts are not disputed by either of the parties with regard to the ownership by one Sri.Kale gowda and the sale made by him thereafter to subsequent purchasers. So also the agreement of sale in favour of the defendant by one Sri.G.C.Shivanna and Smt.Jayamma and family dated 07.02.2007 12. It is also a fact that the specific performance suit came to be dismissed. Therefore, the trial Court and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41611 WP No. 23318 of 2025 the first appellate Court are justified in granting the temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in favour of the plaintiffs. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed or interference by this Court. This Court does not want to delve into the merits of the matter as it may affect the rights of the defendant in the trial. No good grounds are made out to interfere in the orders passed by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. Under the circumstances, I pass the following order: ORDER The petition is dismissed. 2. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE RCK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5