- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52423 WP No. 37251 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.37251 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI VENKATEGOWDA S/O.CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT KANNEGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123 …PETITIONER (BY SRI ARCHITHA SURESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI B.K.RAMAIAH S/O.LATE KEMPAHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS R/AT BASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123 2. SMT.LAKSHMAMMA D/O.SRI B.K.RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT BASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123 3. SMT.KEMPAMMA D/O.SRI B.K.RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT BASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123 Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52423 WP No. 37251 of 2025 4. SRI GOVINDARAJU S/O.LATE NARASEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT KANNEGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123 5. SRI MAHINDRA S/O.SRI GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT KANNEGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123 6. SRI PRASANNA S/O.SRI GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT KANNEGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123 7. SRI RAGHUVAIAH S/O.LATE MUDDHAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT KANNEGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123 8. SRI SUNILKUMAR S/O.LATE C.R.PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.44, 10TH CROSS K.R LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR 6TH STAGE BENGALURU-560 078 9. SRI N.R.CHANDAN S/O.SRI N.A.RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.4839, PARAMANNA LAYOUT NELAMANGALA TOWN NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52423 WP No. 37251 of 2025 10. M/S.KNS SPACES LLP LLP REGISTERED UNDER THE LIMITED LIABILITY OF PARTNERSHIP ACT, 2008 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.1125/12, 1ST FLOOR SERVICE ROAD, HAMPINAGAR VIJAYNAGAR 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560 104 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR.PAVAN KUMAR H.N. 11. VISTRA ITCL (INDIA) LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT 3RD FLOOR, J.B.HOUSE, 110 4TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK KORAMANGALA INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 095 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO GRANT AN AD INTERIM ORDER OF EXPARTE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION RESTRAINING DEFENDANT NOS.7 AND 10/RESPONDENT NOS.7 AND 10 FROM INTERFERING WITH PLAINTIFF'S PEACEFUL POSSESSION OVER THE SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ALIENATING SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTIES PENDING DISPOSAL OF IA.NOS.1 AND 2 IN O.S NO.1032/2025 BEFORE THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT VIDE ANNEXURES-C & C1 AND ETC. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52423 WP No. 37251 of 2025 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard Smt.Architha Suresh, learned counsel for petitioner. 2. The present petition is filed by the plaintiff seeking the following reliefs: "a. Grant ad-interim order of exparte Temporary Injunction restraining the defendant No.7 and 10/Respondents No.7 and 10 from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession over the suit schedule property and alienating suit schedule properties pending disposal of the IA No.1 and 2 in O.S No.1032/2025 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural District vide Annexures-C and C1, until disposal of IA.No.1 & 2. b. Grant such other relief that this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the matter." - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52423 WP No. 37251 of 2025 3. Parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 4. The plaintiff has instituted a suit against the defendants seeking the following reliefs: "(a) Declare that what was purchased by Syed Kasim Saheb S/o Syed Noor Ahmed Saheb under registered Sale Deed dated 24.10.1944 subsequently by RAmegowda under registered Sale Deed dated 04.06.1953 measuring 19 guntas was in Sy.No.81/1 of Kannegowdanahalli Village and not in Sy No.48 of Kannegowdanahalli Village. (b) Declare the Sale Deed dated 21.11.2012 executed by Defendant No.1 to 3 in favour of Defendant No.4 in respect of 19 guntas of land in old Sy No.81/1 is null and void and without title and not binding on the Plaintiff and his family members. (c) Declare the Sale Deed dated 04.09.2013 executed by Defendant No.4 to 6 in favour of Defendant No.7 in respect of item No.2 of suit schedule property is null and void - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52423 WP No. 37251 of 2025 and without title and not binding on the Plaintiff and his family members. (d) Declare the Sale Deed dated 26.05.2014 executed by Defendant No.4 to 6 in favour of Defendant No.8 in respect of item No.1 of suit schedule property is null and void and without title and not binding on the Plaintiff and his family members. (e) Declare the Sale Deed dated 19.01.2018 executed by Defendant No.8 in favour of Defendant No.9 in respect of item No.1 of suit schedule property is null and void and without title and not binding on the Plaintiff and his family members. (f) Declare the Sale Deed dated 19.07.2023 executed by Defendant No.9 in favour of Defendant No.10 in respect of item No.1 of suit schedule property is null and void and without title and not binding on the Plaintiff and his family members. (g) Declare the Mortgage deed dated 10.06.2024 executed by Defendant No.10 in favour of Defendant No.11 and Discharge deed dated 23.06.2025 executed by Defendant No.11 in respect of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52423 WP No. 37251 of 2025 item No.1 of suit schedule property in favour of Defendant No.10 is null and void and without title and not binding on the Plaintiff and his family members. (h) For permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants or anybody claiming under them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff and his family members over the Suit Schedule Property. (i) In the event this Hon'ble Court holds that the Plaintiff is not in possession of the Suit Schedule Property, to direct the Defendants to deliver vacant possession of the Suit Schedule Property to the Plaintiff. (j) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case with costs of the suit in the ends of justice and equity." 5. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff filed two applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking an ad interim ex parte order of temporary - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52423 WP No. 37251 of 2025 injunction. However, the trial Court without passing any order on the said application, has issued emergent notice on IA.No.1 and suit summons to the defendants. 6. This Court does not find any need or necessity to issue notice to the respondents-defendants for the reason that the petitioner is questioning the non-passing of the order on the applications, wherein the trial Court has neither passed any order for grant of an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction or rejection of the same. 7. When an application is filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC by the plaintiff along with the plaint seeking an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction, it becomes the duty and obligation of the trial Court to consider the same and pass suitable orders either granting or rejecting the ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction. This Court in the case of Karnataka State Cricket Association vs. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52423 WP No. 37251 of 2025 Mr.Shashidhara A.V. in WP.No.33725/2025 [Decided on 17.11.2025] has made certain observations and guidelines as to how the trial Court has to deal with an application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. It is not optional for the trial Court to merely issue notice to the defendant before passing an interim order of temporary injunction against the defendant. 8. The trial Court will also have to consider judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Shiv Kumar Chadha vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others reported in (1993)3 SCC 161, Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1674 and the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vedant Fashions Pvt. Ltd., vs. Smt.Rajul Devi reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Kar 7191 while deciding the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52423 WP No. 37251 of 2025 9. In view of the above, it would be appropriate for this Court to direct the trial Court to decide the application either granting or rejecting an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction by providing proper reasons. 10. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) This petition is allowed; ii) The matter is remitted back to the trial Court to consider the applications in IA.Nos.1 and 2 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S.No.1032/2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala and pass suitable orders by providing proper reasoning; iii) It is the discretion and liberty of the trial Court to either grant or reject an ad interim order. But nevertheless, the trial Court is duty bound and obligated to provide proper reasoning while doing so; - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52423 WP No. 37251 of 2025 iv) The learned trial Court Judge shall decide the applications in accordance with the observations made in the judgments as stated supra; v) Parties to the proceedings shall maintain status quo till consideration of the applications in IA.Nos.1 and 2 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC by the learned trial Judge. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE LB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27