- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29720 WP No. 22501 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 22501 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. NARAYANA S/O. HARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.21, 2ND CROSS, CHINNAPPA LAYOUT, NEAR SBI COFFEE BOARD LAYOUT, HEBBAL, KEMPAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 024. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARUN C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. Y. BHASKAR S/O.NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.21, 2ND CROSS, CHINNAPPA LAYOUT, NEAR SBI COFFEE BOARD LAYOUT, HEBBAL KEMPAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 024. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH, ARB BENGALURU 2/3 RAJA BUILDING, Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29720 WP No. 22501 of 2025 N. R. ROAD, BENGALURU -560 002. 3. SMT. VEENA PANI R, W/O. SEENA NAYAK, AGE MAJOR, R/AT NO.51, 2ND FLOOR, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, BEHIND NITESH CENTRAL PARK, VINAYAKANAGAR, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 063. 4. SMT. SEENA NAYAK.H, W/O. HANUME NAYAK, AGED MAJOR R/AT NO. 51, 2ND FLOOR, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, BEHIND NITESH CENTRAL PARK, VINAYAKANAGAR, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 063. 5. THE POLICE INSPECTOR/DSP/DCP AMRUTHAHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU - 560 009. 6. SMT. PUSHPALATHA.B.G. W/O SRINIVAS PAPEGOWDA, PROPRIETOR, SHREYAS FINANCE AND INVESTMENT, A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN HEARING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE NO. 56/1, 3RD FLOOR, 9TH MAIN, OPP. SAMSKRUTI COVENTION HALL, 5TH BLOCK, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29720 WP No. 22501 of 2025 JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 041. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. DIVYA PURANDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. SOURABH R. KURUBARAHALLI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3 AND R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15.07.2025 THEREBY REJECTED APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAME ON THE FILE OF (CCH-33) MARKED AT ANNEXURE -A3 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 15.07.2025, which rejects an application filed by the petitioner or which declines to continue the interim order that was granted earlier. 2. Heard Sri. Arun C., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Divya Purandar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, Sri. Sourabh R. Kurubarahalli, learned counsel appearing for caveator/respondent Nos.3 and 4. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29720 WP No. 22501 of 2025 3. The petitioner is the father of defendant No.1. The father of the first defendant, who is the borrower from the hands of the second defendant Union Bank of India. The loan that is secured becomes sticky and the bank initiates proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Challenging the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the borrower was before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Debts Recovery Tribunal rejects the petition filed by the borrower. Challenging the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, it transpires that the borrower is before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and the matter is pending before the said Tribunal. After all these proceedings, it transpires that a suit is instituted by the father of the borrower in O.S.No.988/2025. In the said suit, the concerned Court initially grants an interim order, which reads as follows: : : O R D E R on I A No. 2 : : Perused the plaint, the documents annexed to the plaint and affidavit filed along with IA. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that defendant No.1 is the son of the plaintiff. The plaintiff paid some amount to the defendant No.1 to purchase the suit schedule properties in his name. After purchasing all the suit schedule properties, the defendant No.1 without the knowledge of the plaintiff mortgaged the suit schedule - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29720 WP No. 22501 of 2025 properties in favour of the Bank and he has also contended that now the Bank has issued sale certificate in favour of other defendants. He has contended that plaintiff and his aged wife are residing in the suit schedule 'A' property. Taking undue advantage of the sale certificate, the defendants are trying to dispossess the plaintiff and his wife from the suit schedule 'A' property. He submits that if the plaintiff and his wife are dispossessed from the suit schedule properties, the right of the plaintiff would be put to irreparable loss and as such, he prays to grant temporary injunction, restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule properties. The suit is for the relief of Partition and separate Possession in respect of the suit schedule properties. This Court has opined that the plaintiff has made out grounds for issuing temporary injunction. If the order of temporary injunction is not granted a situation may arise which may become irreparable by the time suit is closed. To protect the dispossession, status of things need to be maintained at the initial stage. Under these circumstances, an order of exparte temporary injunction is absolutely necessary. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass the following:- : : O R D E R : : The defendants are hereby restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule properties by way of an order of exparte temporary injunction only till the next date of hearing i.e., 12.3.2025. Issue emergent notice on I.A.No.2 and suit summons to the defendants through RPAD as well as through Court if the Plaintiff complies the provisions U/O.39 Rule 3 of CPC., returnable by 12.3.2025. Office is directed not to issue any certified copy of this order to the plaintiff till the above order is complied with." - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29720 WP No. 22501 of 2025 4. The interim order is declined to be extended by the impugned order. The impugned order reads as follows: "Learned counsel for the plaintiff and D2, D2 &amp D4 are present. Counsel for D2 filed written statement with five documents. Counsel for plaintiff filed application U/s. 151 of CPC for extension of TI order. In view of the order of this Court dtd 12.3.2025, since the TI order has not been extended, the application filed U/s. 151 of CPC at this stage is not maintainable and same is rejected. Counsel for D2 filed IA.2 u/O 7 R 11 (a) & (d) of CPC. Counsel for D2 has also filed memo to consider the written statement filed by him as objections to IA.1 filed u/O 32 R 1 & 2 of CPC. Learned counsel for D2 and D4 filed IA.3 u/O 7 R 11(d) of CPC. For objections to IA.2 and 3 by 2.8.2025." 5. There can be no qualm about the order that is passed declining to continue the interim order in the light of the fact that suit itself was not entertainable the at the hands of the concerned Court. 6. Therefore, there is no warrant to entertain the subject petition, the petition stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36/CT: BHK