Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 72205 (KAR)

SRI. APPAJI v. SMT. HONNAMMA

WP/15495/2025 · 2025-07-21

M Nagaprasanna

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27173 WP No. 15495 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 15495 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. APPAJI S/O LATE PAVADAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 2. SRI. PRAKASH S/O LATE. PAVADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, REP. BY GPA HOLDER SRI. APPAJI 3. PUTTASWAMY B.P. S/O LATE. PAVADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, REP. BY GPA HOLDER SRI. APPAJI 4. SRI. SURESH, S/O LATE PAVADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, REP. BY GPA HOLDER SRI. APPAJI S/O LATE PAVADAIAH ALL ARE RESIDING AT BELATHURU VILLAGE, YETHAMBADI POST, Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27173 WP No. 15495 of 2025 KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK - 571 421, MADYA DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B.J. MAHESH, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. HONNAMMA D/O. LATE HONNAIAH, W/O. SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT BELATHURU VILLAGE, YETHAMADI POST, KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK - 571 421, MANDYA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I. SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29-01-2025 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALAVALLI, IN MA NO.20-2022, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27173 WP No. 15495 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the orders of the concerned Court in O.S.No.287/2021 and the order of the First Appellate Court in M.A.No.20/222. 2. Heard Sri. B.J. Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and have perused the material on record. 3. The petitioners are defendants Nos.1 to 4. After hearing the parties, the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC is answered in favour of the plaintiff by granting injunction in a suit for permanent injunction. This is called in question by the present defendants before the First Appellate Court in MA.No.20/2022, which comes to be rejected. Therefore, close to three and half years, the interim order granted under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC is operating. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27173 WP No. 15495 of 2025 4. There is no warrant to interfere with the well reasoned orders of both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. 5. Finding no perversity in those orders, the petition stands rejected. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18 CT: BHK