- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51429 WP No. 36907 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 36907 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. PANKAJA B., W/O SRI. D RAMASUBBA REDDY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/A NO.17, GANGA NIVAS, 3RD CROSS, 4TH BLOCK, SRI. MUNESHWARA LAYOUT, DODDABOMMASANDRA, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BANGALORE-560 097. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VEERESH M. UPPIN.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT V K RAMA D/O SRI. V.K.GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NO.67/C, 2ND MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, 3RD STAGE, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 064. 2. MR. S. DOMNIC, FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: REAL ESTATE AGENT, RESIDING AT: CHICKBETTAHALLI, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 064. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51429 WP No. 36907 of 2025 3. SMT. SHANTHAMMA.M. W/O LATE MOHAN RAJU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, 4. SMT. M. SHASHIKALA W/O LATE MOHAN RAJU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: NOTE KNOWN 5. MR. M.CHANDRASHEKAR RAJU, S/O LATE M.MOHAN RAJU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: NOTE KNOWN. 6. SRI. M.RAJASHEKAR RAJU, S/O LATE M.MOHAN RAJU, AGE 34 YEARS, OCC: REAL ESTATE AGENT RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 6 ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.15, NEAR SUNRISE ENGLISH SCHOOL ROAD, DODDAKRISHNAPPA LAYOUT, BOOPASANDRA, BENGALURU-560 094. 7. MR. ABDUL KHAUM SHAIK, S/O MR. ABDUL GHANI SHAIK, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: REAL ESTATE AGENT, R/AT RAJANNA LAYOUT, R.B.I. LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 011. 8. MR. M.YOUSUF KHAN, S/O LATE M. AHMED, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: REAL ESTATE AGENT, R/AT NO. 188, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51429 WP No. 36907 of 2025 1ST BLOCK EAST, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 560 011. 9. MR. RAHAMATHULLA S/O LATE ABDUL KAREEM, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: REAL ESTATE AGENT, R/AT NO.83/3, GANESH LAYOUT, M.S. PALYA, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU-560 094. 10. SRI. DEEPAK RS REDDY S/O LATE RAMASUBBA REDDY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 17, GANGA NIVAS, 3RD CROSS, 4TH BLOCK, SRI. MUNESHWARA LAYOUT, DODDABOMMASANDRA, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU - 560 097. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.12.2025 IN O.S.NO. 4426/2017 PASSED BY THE XVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (ANNX-H) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51429 WP No. 36907 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This Court does not find any need or necessity to issue notice to the respondents who are defendants before the Trial Court. 3. The present petition is filed by plaintiff No.2 seeking the following reliefs;- "a) Set aside the order dated. 01.12.2025 in O.S.No. 4426/2017 passed by the XVIII Addl. City Civil And Sessions Judge, Bangalore (ANNEXURE - H). b) Restore the order of status quo as per the order dated 15.11.2025 in O.S.No. 4426/2017 passed by the XVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (ANNEXURE - F). c). Allow this writ petition". 4. A short point that arises for consideration in this case is that the plaintiff who had secured an ad-interim order of temporary injunction and later, the same came to be changed into an order of status quo to be maintained by the parties with regard to not to change the nature of suit property was absolute. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51429 WP No. 36907 of 2025 5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff that on the next date of hearing i.e., on 01.12.2025, he was held up in registration of a document before the Sub-Registrar. Hence, the plaintiff filed an application seeking adjournment. The Trial Court on 01.12.2025 though allowed the application for adjournment, passed an order that "Interim order is not extended, since the plaintiff has not shown any bonafide as per order dated 15.11.2025", which is questioned before this Court. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff is that the order is illegal and perverse as the trial Court has not extended the interim order by itself, as no order was sought to be extended. Primarily, the order dated 15.11.2025 is with regard to maintenance of status quo to both the parties to not change the nature of the suit property, which was an absolute order. However, the same was not passed till the next date of hearing for it to be continued or discontinued. Secondly, he contends that the absolute order when it is passed by the Trial Court till the time it is vacated or modified - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51429 WP No. 36907 of 2025 upon the instance of either of the parties, the same would have to be continued. 7. In the present case on hand vide order dated 15.11.2025, after hearing the parties, the Trial Court has directed the parties to maintain status-quo, which was absolute. However, it did not make any observation with regard to the order being passed till the next date. Under such circumstances, the Trial Court did not have any reason not to extend the said order of status-quo because no such application was made by the defendants, so also the trial Court neither expressed any reason or opinion for not extending such order of status-quo. Accordingly, he seeks to set aside order passed with regard to non-extension of the order of status-quo and to continue the order as per the order dated 15.11.2025. 8. This Court is not inclined to issue notice to the respondents/defendants as the defendants had not objected to the non-extension of interim order. The application filed on 01.12.2025 before the Trial Court was to adjourn the matter, in view of the plaintiff being held up in the registration before the Office of Sub-Registrar. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51429 WP No. 36907 of 2025 9. Having perused the impugned order, this Court is of the opinion that when any interim order is granted by the Trial Court and there is no time limit fixed on the same, it stands absolute till it is vacated or modified by a reasoned order of that Court. 10. In the present case, on 01.12.2025, an application was filed seeking an adjournment as learned counsel for the petitioner /plaintiff could not be present. The Court could have either allowed or rejected. However, the Court has no doubt allowed the application for adjournment. There was no necessity for the Court not extend the interim order as no such objection was raised by the defendants or anyone in the proceedings in non extending of the interim order. Moreso, it could not have passed such an order of non-extension, when earlier order of the trial Court passed on 15.11.2025 itself is an absolute order of status quo to be maintained by both parties to not change the nature of the suit property. Under circumstances, the submission of learned counsel is sustainable. The impugned order could not have been passed not extending the interim order by the Court suo-moto. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51429 WP No. 36907 of 2025 11. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. This petition is allowed. ii. The order of status quo passed by the trial Court on 15.11.2025 shall continue untill otherwise modified. iii. In view of the suit being of the year 2017, the trial Court shall dispose off the same as expeditiously as possible. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE RU, List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2