- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26893 W.P. No.15378/2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.15378/2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. M.U. MRUTHUNJAYAPPA S/O LATE UJJANAPPA AGED 67 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT. MEGALAHALLY VILLAGE MEDEHALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH CHITRADURGA TALUK-577 501. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KANTHARAJAPPA M.G. ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. K.R. VISWANATH S/O LATE REVANNA AGED 46 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT. MEDEHALLY MEDEHALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH CHITRADURGA TALUK-577 501. 2. SMT. NIRMALA W/O LATE P.B. BASAVARAJAPPA AGED 56 YEARS BUSINESS, R/AT RUPAVANI TALKIES ROAD LAKSHMI BAZAR, 3RD CROSS CHITRADURGA TALUK-577 501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VAJRALLI GANAPATI BHAT, ADV., FOR R1 & R2) Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26893 W.P. No.15378/2020 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CHITRADURGA IN MA NO.07/2019 DTD 23.10.2020 PRODUCED AS VIDE ANNX-J AND LEARNED II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE CHITRADURGA IN OS.NO.27/2019 DTD 20.02.2019 IN IA NO.2 PRODUCED AS VIDE ANNX-F & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: "a) Issue writ of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction, in the nature of writ, quashing order passed by the learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge Chitradurga in MA.No.07/2019 dated 23/10/2020 produced as Annexure - J and learned II Addl. Civil Judge Chitradurga in OS.No.27/2019 dated 20/02/2019 in IA.No.2 produced as Annexure-F to the writ petition. b) Cost and such other reliefs deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Sri.Kantharajappa M.G., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an application seeking temporary injunction. However, the trial Court without appreciating the RTCs and other documents produced before it, rejected the application, which has been - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26893 W.P. No.15378/2020 challenged by the petitioner in the appeal. Similarly, the Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal by recording an incorrect finding. It is submitted that due to the pendency of this petition, the proceedings in the suit have stalled and no further process has taken place. It is submitted that the petitioner has a good case on merit and if the interim order granted by this Court on 22.12.2020 is continued till the disposal of the suit, the purpose of this petition would be served. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.Vajralli Ganapati Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supports the impugned orders of the trial Court and the Appellate Court and submits that the trial Court while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for temporary injunction has categorically recorded the finding in detail that the documents placed by the petitioner is pertaining to Sy.No.27/3P1, however, the suit claim is for Sy.No.27/3, hence, the trial Court rightly rejected the application, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26893 W.P. No.15378/2020 which has been rightly affirmed by the Appellate Court. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the writ petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides. 5. The pleading and material on record indicates that the petitioner filed OS.No.27/2019 against the respondents for the relief of declaration that the petitioner/plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property and for further relief of permanent injunction. The suit schedule property shown in the plaint is Sy.No.27/3 measuring 3 acres 20 guntas situated at Megal hally Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk. The respondents denied the assertion made in the plaint and sought for dismissal of the suit. The application filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26893 W.P. No.15378/2020 short 'CPC') came to be rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 20.02.2019 by recording the finding that the documents relied by the petitioner to establish a prima facie case with regard to the possession cannot be accepted as the document does not tally with the suit schedule property claimed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal in MA.No.7/2019. The Appellate Court vide order dated 23.10.2020 dismissed the appeal affirming the finding recorded by the trial Court on the application filed by the petitioner. 6. I have perused the finding recorded by both the trial Court and the Appellate Court. I do not find any perversity or error in those findings. However, this Court is not inclined to record any finding with regard to the merits of the rival contentions urged by the parties to the proceedings. This Court on 22.12.2020 has passed an interim order by directing the parties to maintain the status quo and the order sheet indicates that the said - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26893 W.P. No.15378/2020 order is continued from time to time and is still in force. It is submitted at the bar that due to the pendency of this petition, the suit has not proceeded. Keeping all these aspects in mind, I am of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if the interim order granted by this Court on 22.12.2020 is continued till the disposal of the suit. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits and demerits of the case as contended by the parties. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is disposed of. ii) The parties are directed to maintain the status quo till the disposal of the suit. iii) No orders as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30