- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42135 WP No. 27455 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 27455 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RAJANNA, S/O. LATE PAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-561 203, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SRI. P. SEETHARAMAIAH, S/O. LATE PAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT No. 1, 5TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS, LALBAHADDUR NAGAR, OMR LAYOUT, CHANNASANDRA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 043. …PETITIONER (BY SRI C.R. SANDESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. RAVIKUMAR H. K., S/O. LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42135 WP No. 27455 of 2025 2. SRI. HEMANNA GOWDA. H. K. S/O. LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 3. SRI. PURUSHOTHAM. H. K. S/O. LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 4. SRI. PRABHAKAR. H. K. S/O. LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NEAR JNANA BHARATHI SCHOOL, GUDDAHALLI, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BENGALURU-560 088. 5. SRI. ANJANAPPA S/O. LATE GANGAHANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL, RESIDING AT GUDDAHALLI, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BENGALURU-560 088. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAJANNA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.08.2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN ALLOWING MA No.125/2022 PREFERRED BY THE DEFENDANTS RESPONDENTS VIDE ANNEXURE - A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42135 WP No. 27455 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER Heard Sri C.R. Sandesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Rajanna, learned counsel appearing for the caveator/respondent No.3. 2. This writ petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.505/2021 on the file of the IV Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, challenging the order dated 07.08.2025 passed in M.A.No.125/2022 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. 3. The petitioner filed O.S.No.505/2021 seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, comprising land measuring 1 acre 19 guntas in Sy.No.4 of Dasenahalli Village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, and an extent of 20 guntas in Sy.No.3 of the same village and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42135 WP No. 27455 of 2025 hobli. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081, seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants. The Trial Court, by order dated 10.10.2022, granted an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants. 4. The defendants preferred M.A.No.125/2022. Under the impugned order, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed on I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. 5. Sri C.R. Sandesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Trial Court, by order dated 10.10.2022 passed on I.A.No.1, granted an order of temporary injunction after due consideration of the case of both parties. It is contended that the Appellate Court, under the 1 CPC - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42135 WP No. 27455 of 2025 impugned order, without proper appreciation of the material on record, set aside the order of injunction and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration of I.A.No.1. 6. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was enjoying the benefit of the injunction till the same was set aside under the impugned order. Hence, it is contended that the Appellate Court ought to have protected the interest of the petitioner pending reconsideration of the application on remand before the Trial Court. 7. Sri Rajanna, learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.3, submits that the Appellate Court, having found that the Trial Court had not properly appreciated and considered the documents produced by the respondents and the other material on record, rightly set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Learned counsel further submits that the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42135 WP No. 27455 of 2025 order of remand does not warrant interference by this Court. It is also contended that the plaintiff has not established his physical possession over the suit schedule property, and the said aspect was not duly considered by the Trial Court. 8. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned orders, it is seen that the Trial Court, at the first instance, granted an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants. The said order was challenged in appeal by the defendants. The Appellate Court, under the impugned order, on noticing that the Trial Court had not recorded any finding regarding the balance of convenience and irreparable injury likely to be caused to the plaintiff, found the order of injunction to be erroneous. Accordingly, the Appellate Court set aside the order of injunction and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration of I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42135 WP No. 27455 of 2025 As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the order of remand does not warrant interference by this Court. 9. Having regard to the facts of the present case, this Court is inclined to direct the parties to maintain status quo till the fresh consideration of I.A.No.1 by the Trial Court, as directed by the Appellate Court. Such an arrangement ought to have been made by the Appellate Court, considering that the plaintiff was enjoying the benefit of the injunction till the same was set aside. 10. In light of the above observations, the following; Order (i) The writ petition is allowed-in-part. (ii) The parties shall maintain status quo, till the Trial Court passes a fresh order on I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC as directed by the Appellate Court in M.A.No.125/2022 vide order dated 07.08.2025. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42135 WP No. 27455 of 2025 (iii) The Trial Court is requested to expedite the disposal of I.A. No.1 in O.S. No.505/2021. Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS/MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10