- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33933 WP No. 13499 of 2023 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. 13499 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI D. C. GOVINDARAJU, S/O LATE CHIKKANNAIAH ALIS D. G. CHIKKANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O DEVALAPURA VILLAGE, KORA HOBLI 572138, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI V. B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI D. C. SRINIVAS @ SRINIVASAMURTHY, S/O LATE CHIKKALLAIAH, @ D.G. CHIKKANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/O DEVALAPURA VILLAGE, KORA HOBLI 572138, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI BALAJI C.N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI CHITHAPPA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.2.2023, VIDE ANNEXURE-H PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, AT Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33933 WP No. 13499 of 2023 TUMAKURU, PASSED ON MA No.8.2020, FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(R) OF CPC, CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION DATED 21.12.2019, PASSED ON IA No.NIL, FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC, PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT TUMAKURU, IN O.S. No.859/2018, VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPEAL IN MA No.8/2020, FILED BY THE PETITIONER, VIDE ANNEXURE-F. 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 Heard Sri V.B. Siddaramaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri C.N. Balaji, learned counsel appearing for Sri Chithappa, for the respondents. 2. The defendant in O.S. No.859/2018 has preferred this writ petition challenging the order of temporary injunction dated 21.12.2019 passed on I.A. filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), by the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru, as well as the order dated 23.02.2023 passed in M.A. No.8/2020 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33933 WP No. 13499 of 2023 3. The respondent–plaintiff instituted a suit seeking various reliefs, one of which was for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the petitioner–defendant from obstructing the pathway leading from the Devalapura–Mavkere main road to the suit schedule property. The defendant entered appearance and filed a written statement. The Trial Court, by order dated 21.12.2019, allowed the application for injunction and restrained the defendant from obstructing the plaintiff in using the bund (ridge) from the Devalapura–Mavkere main road to access the suit schedule property, pending disposal of the suit. This order was challenged in M.A. No.8/2020. The Appellate Court, by order dated 23.02.2023, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of injunction. Both these orders are assailed in the present writ petition. 4. Sri V.B. Siddaramaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner–defendant, submits that the reliefs sought in the suit are not maintainable. It is further submitted that prayers (a) and (b) are not maintainable as against the petitioner, since the open well is situated in the karab land. Insofar as prayer (c) is concerned, learned counsel submits that the plaintiff has - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33933 WP No. 13499 of 2023 projected as though a bund exists from the Devalapura– Mavkere main road leading to the petitioner’s land. It is his contention that no such bund exists so as to permit its use by the plaintiff. The Trial Court, without examining the existence of the bund, has erroneously granted an order of injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing the plaintiff from using the alleged bund. 5. Sri C.N. Balaji, learned counsel appearing for Sri Chithappa, learned counsel for the respondent–plaintiff, submits that the larger extent of the property was originally owned by the plaintiff and the defendant, who are brothers, and that the said extent was divided among three brothers. It is contended that the defendant–petitioner, taking advantage of the allotment of the property situated on the road side, is causing obstruction to the plaintiff’s access to his property. Learned counsel categorically submits that a bund exists from the Devalapura–Mavkere main road providing access to the plaintiff’s land. It is therefore submitted that both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, having found a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff, have rightly granted an order of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33933 WP No. 13499 of 2023 injunction. Accordingly, learned counsel prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the writ petition papers. 7. From the pleadings and the documents on record, it is evident that the dispute is between brothers and arises out of the division of a larger extent of property among the three brothers. The controversy in the present petition pertains to the existence of a bund. According to the plaintiff, a bund exists from the Devalapura–Mavkere main road providing access to his land, whereas the defendant denies its existence. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, on a prima facie consideration of the pleadings and the material on record, have restrained the defendant from obstructing the plaintiff from using the bund. 8. Having regard to the fact that the dispute is between brothers, and that the existence of the bund can be determined only upon a full-fledged trial of the suit, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the Trial Court - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33933 WP No. 13499 of 2023 and the Appellate Court. The petitioner has not made out any cogent ground warranting interference with the impugned orders. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 10. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit, instituted in the year 2018, is still at the stage of recording the plaintiff’s evidence and that it cannot be said to have substantially progressed since its institution. Though this Court is ordinarily slow in directing time-bound disposal of suits pending before the Trial Court. Having regard to the nature of the dispute and the pendency of the suit since 2018, the Trial Court is expected to dispose of the matter expeditiously, and the parties are directed to extend their co-operation for such expeditious disposal. Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45