- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29202 WP No. 13392 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 13392 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. PUTTAIAH S/O EERACHIKKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, 2. SRI. GANGAPPA S/O EERACHIKKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, 3. SRI. SIDDAGANGAIAH S/O EERACHIKKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, PETITIONERS ARE RESIDING AT KALLODU, KANNAMANGALA POST, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. NAGARATHNA.S.K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. PUTTAIAH S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 2. SRI. GANGAPPA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29202 WP No. 13392 of 2021 RESPONDENTS ARE RESIDING AT KALLODU, KANNAMANGALA POST, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUNIL.S.RAO., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T.SESHAGIRI RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Smt.Nagarathna.S.K., counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Sunil S.Rao., counsel for the respondents have appeared in person. 2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 13.02.2020 passed by the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Doddaballapura in M.A.No.10088/2019 vide Annexure-M and the order dated 23.08.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura on an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 R/w Section 94(e) of CPC in O.S.No.155/2011 vide Annexure-L. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29202 WP No. 13392 of 2021 3. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court. 4. The short facts are these: The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking certain reliefs. After the issuance of suit summons, defendants filed a written statement. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 R/w. Section 94(e) of CPC and prayed for grant of temporary injunction restraining defendants from altering/ changing the nature of application schedule properties i.e., Item Nos.11 to 14 of the plaint schedule property. Defendants filed statement of objections to the application. The Trial Court vide order dated 23.08.2019 allowed the application. As against the said order, an appeal was filed in Misc. Appeal No.10088/2019. The Appellate Court vide order dated 13.02.2020, confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court. 5. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29202 WP No. 13392 of 2021 6. The issue falls within a narrow compass and relates to the grant of temporary injunction. As could be seen from the lis between the parties, the suit is one for partition. Taking note of the fact that the defendants were putting up construction, the Trial Court concluded that further construction and change in the nature of the property would cause prejudice to the plaintiffs. Hence, an order of injunction was granted. The Appellate Court has examined the evidence on record and re- appraised it. I am satisfied that it has been appreciated from the correct perspective. Further the findings by the Court of facts are neither vitiated by non-consideration of relevant evidence nor there is an erroneous approach to the matter. I do not find any error in the finding of facts. Furthermore, both the Courts concurrently arrived at a finding of fact based on the material evidence on record. Needless to say, the grant of interim relief of temporary injunction is discretionary in nature. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court exercised the discretionary powers from the right perspective. Under such circumstances, the High Court exercising power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India cannot reverse the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29202 WP No. 13392 of 2021 concurrent findings under ordinary circumstances. Hence, I decline to interfere with the orders. 7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Lastly, counsel for the respective parties jointly submit that they would advise the parties to minimize the lis and cooperate with the Court for speedy disposal of the suit. The oral submission made by counsel for the respective parties about minimizing the lis is placed on record. The suit is filed in 2011. Now we are in the month of July 2025. The suit is pending from fourteen years. Hence, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible within the outer limit of 01 year 03 months. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33