- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53584 WP No. 37152 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 37152 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. S V RAJENDRA PRASAD, S/O. S.V.VENKATACHALASETTY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, NO.24, 4TH CROSS, 1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011. 2. SMT. NAGA MALLIKA N., W/O. SIVASHANKAR.G., AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/A FLAT NO.401, K.V MEADOWS, 13TH CROSS, VENKATAPURA EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560 034. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT.SIRI RAJASHEKAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI.KALEEM @ SHAIK KALEEM, S/O. MR. SHAIK SUBHAN, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO.132, SHIKARIPALYA, Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53584 WP No. 37152 of 2025 HULIMANGALA POST, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-560 106. ALSO AT FLAT NO.216 AND 316, SRI.CHAKRA BLOSSOM, NILADRI ROAD, MARAGONDANAHALLI, JIGNI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-560 105. 2. SMT.SHAHEDA NOOR, WIFE OF KALEEM @ SHAIK KALEEM, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/A NO.132, SHIKARIPALYA, HULIMANGALA POST, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-560 106. 3. SRI.SADDAR, FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN AGED MAJOR R/A PARAPPANA AGRAHARA, HOSA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 100 4. SRI.LOKAMATHA, FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/A D.N.GOWRI DIGITAL STUDIO, SHIKARIPALYA, ELECTRONIC CITY, BENGALURU - 560 100. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53584 WP No. 37152 of 2025 5. SRI.NAGAIAH S HIREMATH, SON OF S R HIREMATH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A NO.20, OLD NO.8, 1ST MAIN, 4TH A CROSS, KASHIVISHWANATHA TEMPLE, B.CHANNASANDRA, KALYANANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 043. 6. SRI.MANJUNATH, SON OF SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/A NO.7, SUKRUTI DADDY'S GARDEN ROAD, KAMMASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 100. … RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SEEKING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.11.2025 PASSED ON I.A. UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULES 1 AND 2 CPC IN O.S.NO.1264/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53584 WP No. 37152 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Heard learned Senior counsel Sri.D.R.Ravishankar., on behalf of learned counsel Smt.Siri Rajashekar., for the petitioners. 2. This petition is filed by the plaintiffs seeking the following reliefs: a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned order dated 24.11.2025 passed on I.A. under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC in O.S.No.1264/2025 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Bengaluru, produced as Annexure-C. b) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53584 WP No. 37152 of 2025 3. The petitioners are the plaintiffs before the Trial Court in O.S.No.1264/2025, they filed a suit against the respondents/ defendants for the following reliefs. a. Granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, his heirs, successors, agents, henchmen, servants and/ or any person or persons acting through or under him and/ or claiming right through or under him from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property by the plaintiffs; b. Grant such other and further relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant under the facts and circumstance of the case. 4. Along with the plaint, plaintiffs filed application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking for an ad-interim ex-parte order of temporary injunction, restraining the defendants, their heirs, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53584 WP No. 37152 of 2025 successors, agents, henchmen, servants and/ or any person or persons acting through or under them and/ or claiming right through or under them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in item No.1. 5. The plaintiffs addressed their arguments for the grant of an ad-interim order of temporary injunction dispensing notice to the defendants on the ground of urgency shown and that the delay would cause injustice and hardship to the plaintiffs. It is seen that the Trial Court has stated that the plaintiffs have not made out any grounds or urgency to grant ad-interim ex-parte temporary injunction at this stage. Hence, before passing any order on I.A. it is necessary to hear the other side and issue emergent notice on I.A.No.1 and suit summons to the defendants' returnable by 05.01.2026. 6. It is this Order that is questioned by the learned counsel for the petitioners, contending that the Trial Court has committed an error in refusing ad-interim protection - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53584 WP No. 37152 of 2025 despite clear prima facie case made out and also on the ground that he has produced other materials along with the plaint including the Judgments rendered in O.S.No.819/2013 and O.S.No.817/2013 instituted by the respondents/ defendants against the vendors of the plaintiffs which came to be dismissed. So also it is contended by learned senior counsel that there is a perverse appreciation of the materials and non- consideration of the pleadings by the learned Trial Judge. 7. It is further contented by the learned senior counsel that there is misapplication of the principles of Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 and there is a cryptic non speaking order, violation of the duty to record reasons. It is further contented that when the plaintiffs have placed several materials along with the plaint and has made assertions in the affidavit annexed to the application, so also in the plaint with regard to the earlier suit proceedings initiated by the respondents/ defendants against the vendor of the plaintiffs, suit having been - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53584 WP No. 37152 of 2025 dismissed for the very same smaller extent of the suit schedule property. The Trial Court ought to have considered all these aspects and ought to have passed a reasoned order which it has not done and has merely passed an order stating that the plaintiffs have not made out any good ground or urgency to grant ex-parte temporary injunction which is perverse and illegal and not the requirements while passing the orders under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2, where an urgency is shown and the plaintiffs have sought for an ad-interim ex-parte order of temporary injunction prior to issuance of notice to the defendants. 8. Having heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners/ plaintiffs and having perused the affidavit annexed to the application including the documents produced now with regard to the two suits filed by the respondents/ defendants against the vendors of the plaintiffs, the same having been dismissed. The plaintiffs are claiming there is a threat of dispossession and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53584 WP No. 37152 of 2025 interference, with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintiffs who are the absolute owners by virtue of a registered sale deed, which are also produced before the Trial Court which is not taken note of by the learned Trial Judge while passing the impugned order. 9. Having considered all these aspects, it would be relevant once again to mention the duties and obligations of the Trial Court while considering the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2. As decided by this Court in the case of Karnataka State Cricket Association V/s. Mr.Shashidhara.A.V in Writ Petition No.33725/2025 disposed of on 17.11.2025. Where this Court has passed certain guidelines as to how the Trial Court has to consider an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2, including relying upon the Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sri.Shiv Kumar Chadha V/s. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others reported in (1993) 3 SCC 161 and in the case of Time City infrastructure - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53584 WP No. 37152 of 2025 and Housing Limited Lucknow V/s State of U.P. and others reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1674 and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vedant Fashions Pvt. Ltd., V/s Smt.Rajul Devi reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Kar 7191. It is seen that in all these cases this Court has been referring the matter back to the Trial Court for reconsideration of the matter and pass suitable orders within a time frame. But in the present case on hand considering the fact that now the case is listed on 05.01.2026, and only three days left for the Winter Vacation, 2025 to commence, it would be difficult for the Trial Court to take up the matter and consider the application, if this Court were to direct the Trial Court to do so. Eventually, it is for the Trial Court to consider the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 and decide the matter on merits. But in the meanwhile, in view of the serious threat of dispossession and the documents having been produced by the plaintiffs, with regard to the sale deed and other co-ordinate litigations referred by the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53584 WP No. 37152 of 2025 respondents/ defendants against the vendors of the plaintiffs to a smaller extent of the very same suit schedule property, this Court deems it appropriate at this stage to show indulgence in this matter which shall not become a precedent. Accordingly, I pass the following Order. ORDER i. This petition is disposed of. ii. The matter is remitted back to the learned Trial Judge to consider the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S.No.1264/2025 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Bengaluru. In the meanwhile, the parties to the proceedings i.e., the plaintiffs and the defendants shall maintain status quo so far as the possession with regard to the suit schedule property. This order will operate till the next date of hearing before the Trial Court. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53584 WP No. 37152 of 2025 iii. It is made clear that the Trial Court shall take up the matter on the next date and hear the parties, if the summons are served on the defendants upon taking the objections if any and pass suitable orders. iv. In the event the summon and notice is not served the Trial Court shall pass suitable orders on the grant of ad-interim injunction which is sought in I.A.No.1 under order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2. While doing so, the Trial Court is obligated and duty bound to pass a reasoned order by adhering to the Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court stated herein above. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2