- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51700 WP No. 7354 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 7354 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI NAVEENKUMAR MATAPATHI S/O CHANDRASHEKAR AGED 31 YEARS POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR KUMSI POLICE STATION KUMSI, SHIVAMOGGA TQ AND DIST. - 577 423. 2. SMT. KAVITHA W/O SHVIAKUMAR AGED 31 YEARS WOMEN POLICE CONSTABLE KUMSI POLICE STATION KUMSI, SHIVAMOGGA TQ AND DIST. - 577 423. 3. SMT. ASHA W/O NAGARAJ AGED 34 YEARS WOMEN POLICE CONSTABLE KUMSI POLICE STATION KUMSI, SHIVAMOGGA TQ AND DIST. - 577423. 4. SRI NITHIN KUMAR S/O RAJAPPA AGED 25 YEARS POLICE CONSTABLE KUMSI POLICE STATION KUMSI, SHIVAMOGGA TQ AND DIST.- 577423. 5. KHALID AHAMMAD S/O LATE ABDUL HAMEED AGED 28 YEARS Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51700 WP No. 7354 of 2021 R/AT BEHIND MASJID ROAD HARNAHALI VILLAGE HARNAHALLI HOBLI SHIVAMOGGA TQ AND DIST.- 577416. 6. KUNEN SARVARI S/O K SYED MAJAR AGED 22 YEARS R/AT BEHIND MASJID ROAD HARNAHALI VILLAGE HARNAHALLI HOBLI SHIVAMOGGA TQ AND DIST. - 577416. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADV.) AND: 1. ATEEQ AHAMED S/O NISSAR AHAMMAD AGED 39 YEARS TIMBER MERCHANT R/O HARNAHALLI MASJID ROAD HARNAHALLI HOBLI SHIVAMOGGA TQ AND DIST. 577416. 2. S.M. SHAMEENA W/O SYED MAJAR AGED 47 YEARS HOUSE HOLD DUTIES R/AT BEHIND MASJID ROAD HARNAHALI VILLAGE HARNAHALLI HOBLI SHIVAMOGGA TQ AND DIST.- 577416. 3. SYED MAJAR S/O LATE SYED HUSSAIN SAB AGED 64 YEARS PETTY MERCHANT R/AT BEHIND MASJID ROAD HARNAHALI VILLAGE HARNAHALLI HOBLI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51700 WP No. 7354 of 2021 SHIVAMOGGA TQ AND DIST.- 577416. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P.N. HARISH, ADV., FOR R-1; R-2 & R-3 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 12.03.2021 PASSED IN EX.NO.32/2021 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 2(A) R/W SEC.36 OF CPC, ON THE FILE FIRST ADDL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA (I/C FIRST ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA) VIDE ANNX-E. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Petitioners are before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order dated 12.032021 passed in Ex.P.No.32 of 2021 by the Court of Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Shivamogga. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Respondent no.1 herein has filed O.S.No.78 of 2021 before the jurisdictional civil Court at Shivamogga against the respondent nos.2 and 3 herein seeking the relief of permanent injunction and consequential relief of mandatory injunction in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51700 WP No. 7354 of 2021 respect of suit schedule 'A' and 'B' property. In the said suit, I.A.No.I was filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC and the trial Court vide the order dated 04.02.2021, had passed an ad-interim ex-parte order of temporary injunction against the defendants and their agents, men, representatives from trespassing and putting up staircase in suit 'B' schedule property or any type of construction in the said property which would cause hindrance to the movement of plaintiff and his family members to reach the backyard of his house through 'B' schedule property. Alleging violation of the aforesaid ad-interim order of temporary injunction granted in O.S.No.78 of 2021, petition under Order XXXIX Rule 2A R/w Section 151 of CPC & Section 36 of CPC was filed on behalf of the plaintiff, which is numbered as Ex.P.No.32 of 2021. In addition to the original defendants, who are arrayed as respondent nos.1 and 2 in Ex.P.No.32 of 2021, the petitioners herein are also arrayed as respondent nos.3 to 8 in Ex.P.No.32 of 2021 and the trial Court has issued showcase notice to all the respondents in Ex.P.No.32 of 2021. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners, who are arrayed as respondent nos.3 to 8 in Ex.P.No.32 of 2021 are before this Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51700 WP No. 7354 of 2021 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that, petitioner nos.1 to 4 are the police officers of the jurisdictional police station and unnecessarily, they have been made as parties to the proceedings initiated under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC. He submits that petitioner nos.5 and 6 claim under original defendant no.2 and they are not parties to the suit and therefore there is no justification in arraying them as respondents in an application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC. The trial Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and has erred in issuing show cause notice to the petitioners. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has argued in support of the order impugned and submit that only show cause notice has been issued to the petitioners and they are at liberty to file their reply or objections before the trial Court. They cannot question the said order before this Court. He submits that petitioners herein have stepped into the shoes of judgment debtors and therefore in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51700 WP No. 7354 of 2021 RAMACHANDRA V LAXMANA RAO reported in ILR 2000 KAR 2341, they are bound to answer the show cause notice that was issued by the trial Court. He submits that petitioner nos.1 to 4 are public authorities, who have acted in a high- handed manner and have supported the judgment debtors who have willfully violated the ad-interim order of temporary injunction granted by the trial Court in O.S.No.78 of 2021. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of JAYAMMA AND OTHERS V STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS reported in 2021 (2) KCCR 1075. 6. O.S.No.78 of 2021 is filed by respondent no.1 here seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants from putting up any type of staircase in 'B' schedule property which is portion of 'A' schedule property and he also has sought for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to demolish the staircase in the event they have put up any staircase in 'B' schedule property. In the said suit, I.A.No.I was filed under Order No.XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC and the trial Court vide the order dated 04.02.2021 has passed an ad- - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51700 WP No. 7354 of 2021 interim ex-parte order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants and their men, agents or representatives from trespassing and putting up staircases in suit schedule 'B' property or any type of construction in the said properties which would cause hindrance for the movement of the plaintiff and his family members to reach the backyard of his house through 'B' schedule property. Alleging disobedience of the said order, petition under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC is filed and perusal of the cause title of the said petition would go to show that in addition to the original defendants who are respondent nos.1 and respondent no.2 in the said petition, the petitioners herein are also arrayed as respondents nos.3 to 8 in the petition. 7. Petitioner nos.1 to 4 herein are said to be the police officers attached to the jurisdictional police station under which the suit schedule property is situated. Allegation by the plaintiff against these officers is that they have colluded with the original defendants who have violated the ad-interim ex-parte temporary injunction granted on I.A.No.I in O.S.No.78 of 2021. If that is so, it is for the Plaintiff to file necessary complaint - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51700 WP No. 7354 of 2021 against the police officers before their higher officers so as to take action against them in accordance with law. The officers of a police station cannot be asked to stand trial in a proceedings initiated under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC, when undisputedly they are not party defendants in the suit, in which an order has been passed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, which is allegedly violated by the defendants to the suit. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that trial Court was not justified in issuing show cause notice to petitioner nos.1 to 4 herein. Insofar as petitioner nos.5 and 6 are concerned, it is their case that though they claim right under original defendant no.2 in the suit, since they are not parties to the suit, the trial Court was not justified in issuing notice to them. 8. A reading of the ad-interim order of temporary injunction would go to show that the said order has been passed against the defendants or anybody claiming under or through them and since petitioner nos.5 and 6 undisputedly claim under the original defendant no.2 in the suit and since they have allegedly violated the order of temporary injunction along with defendant nos.1 and 2, they are answerable to the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51700 WP No. 7354 of 2021 show cause notice, which is issued to them by the trial Court on the allegation that the ad-interim order passed by the trial Court on I.A.No.I in O.S.No.78 of 2021 has been willfully violated by the defendant nos.1 and 2 and persons claiming under them. Insofar as petitioner nos.1 to 4 herein are concerned, they are not persons who claim under defendant nos.1 and 2 to the suit and therefore they cannot asked to show cause for the notice issued to them on a petition filed under Order No. XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC. 9. In the case of RAMACHANDRA (supra), the question that fell into consideration before the Division Bench of this Court was whether a subsequent purchaser of the land which was subject matter of decree for permanent injunction can be held liable for having violated the decree of permanent injunction granted against his vendor. 10. The Division Bench of this Court, taking into consideration Section 146 of CPC, which provides for proceedings by or against representatives has held that a subsequent purchaser is a person who claims right over the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51700 WP No. 7354 of 2021 property which is subject matter of the decree for permanent injunction under the judgment debtor and therefore he can be considered as his representative and accordingly has held that a decree for permanent injunction can be executed against the transferee judgment debtor. The said judgment cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case insofar as petitioner nos.1 to 4 are concerned, since they do not claim any right, title or interest over the suitable property either under defendant nos.1 and 2 or independent. 11. In the case of JAYAMMA (supra), this Court has observed that public authorities is acting in a high-handed manner are liable for action against them and the said order has been passed in writ proceedings taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the said case. Therefore, the said judgment also cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the writ petition has to succeed insofar as petitioner nos.1 to 4 herein are concerned. 12. Accordingly, the following:- - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51700 WP No. 7354 of 2021 ORDER i. Writ petition is partly allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 12.03.2021 passed in Ex.P.No.32 of 2021 by the Court of Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Shivamogga is quashed as against petitioner nos.1 to 4 herein are concerned. Pending applications do not survive for consideration and accordingly the same are disposed of. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45