- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33941 WP No. 27746 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 27746 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI C. D. SHIVANNA, S/O LATE DASANNA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDENT OF ANJALI EXTENSION, CHINTAMANI - 563125. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT No.73/30, 1ST MAIN, 31ST CROSS, MARUTHINAGAR, YALAHANKA, BANGALORE - 560064. …PETITIONER (BY SRI H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. JAYAMMA, W/O LATE VENKATARAMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE MURAPAMALLA HOBLI, CHITHAMANI TALUK - 563125 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAYARAMA BHATT S., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN OS No.85/2023 ON IA No.4 DATED 31.01.2024 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHINTHAMANI AT ANNEXURE-L AND ETC. Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33941 WP No. 27746 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER The plaintiff in O.S. No.85/2023, pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani, challenging the order dated 31.01.2024 in I.A. No.IV, whereby the request for police protection was refused, is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner-plaintiff has filed O.S. No.85/2023 seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant in respect of the suit schedule property. By order dated 09.08.2023, the trial Court restrained the defendant, her family members, agents, servants, contractors, or any person acting on her behalf, from interfering with the petitioner-plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. A similar order was passed in I.A. No.II, restraining the defendant from creating any charge over any portion of the suit schedule property in any manner. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33941 WP No. 27746 of 2024 3. The plaintiff filed I.A. No.IV, praying for a direction to the Police Sub-Inspector, Town Police Station, Chintamani, to provide necessary police protection to enable the plaintiff to peacefully enjoy the suit schedule property, which, it was alleged, was being interfered with by the defendant in violation of the injunction order. The application was opposed by the defendant by filing statement of objections. By the impugned order dated 31.01.2024, the trial Court rejected the application, holding that the petitioner has a remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC in the event of a violation of the interim injunction. 4. Sri H.C. Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the trial Court committed an error in rejecting the application for police protection to prevent violation of the injunction order. Learned counsel contends that the remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC is not the sole remedy available. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff is entitled to seek police protection for the enforcement and implementation of the injunction order, which the trial Court erred in not directing. In - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33941 WP No. 27746 of 2024 support of his submissions, learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sri Krishnappa v. Sri Malleshappa, (2021 [4] KCCR 2987). 5. Per contra, Sri S. Jayarama Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submits that a similar application had earlier been filed by the petitioner and was subsequently withdrawn, and that another application seeking the same relief is not maintainable. Learned counsel further submits that, in the event of a violation of the injunction order, as held by the trial Court, the petitioner has a remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order of the trial Court is justified. 6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the writ papers, this Court notes that the trial Court, by order dated 09.08.2023 in I.A. No.I filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, restrained the defendant, her family members, agents, servants, contractors, or any person acting on her behalf, from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33941 WP No. 27746 of 2024 enjoyment of the suit schedule property until the disposal of the suit. 7. The petitioner-plaintiff filed an application seeking police protection, alleging that the interim injunction had been violated by the defendant. The statement of objections filed by the defendant does not seriously dispute the averments made in the application. Similarly, the respondent-defendant does not seriously dispute the violation of the injunction order. As held by this Court in Sri Krishnappa (supra), Order XXXIX Rule 2A is not the sole remedy available when a blatant violation of an injunction order is alleged. In the present case, the averments in the application remain largely undisputed. If necessary protection is not granted for the enforcement and implementation of the injunction order, such order would remain only on paper and risk being disregarded, thereby undermining the sanctity of Court orders. The trial Court, without taking these aspects into consideration and on mere technical grounds, erred in rejecting the application on the basis that the plaintiff has a remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33941 WP No. 27746 of 2024 8. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the Court passes the following orders: O R D E R (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 31.01.2024 passed on I.A.No.IV in O.S.No.85/2023 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Chintamani, is hereby set aside. (iii) I.A.No.IV filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of CPC for a direction to the Police Sub-Inspector, Town Police Station, Chintamani, is allowed. (iv) The Police Sub-Inspector, Town Police Station, Chintamani, is directed to give necessary Police assistance/protection to the plaintiff for peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property without any obstruction by the defendant and her family members, agents, servants, contractors or anybody claiming right through the defendant. (v) No order as to costs. SD/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50