- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:13500 WP No. 8993 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.8993 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: C. NARAYANASWAMY S/O. CHANNAPPA ACHAPPA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS R/AT NO. 51, 3RD MAIN 10TH CROSS, BAPUJINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 026 REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SMT.KRISHNAMMA …PETITIONER (BY SRI.VIVEK SUBBA REDDY., SR.ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJESH A.,ADVOCATE) AND: VENKATAPPA S/O. LATE GIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT NO.6/1, KATTRIGUPPE MAIN ROAD VIVEKANANDA NAGAR BSK III STAGE BENGALURU - 560 085 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.SHARATH S.GOWDA., FOR SRI. GANESHA P.,ADVOCATES) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT TO DISPOSE OF THE APPLICATION AS PER IA NO.1/2025 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN OS Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:13500 WP No. 8993 of 2025 NO.128/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU EXPEDITIOUSLY PREFERABLY WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO WEEKS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard learned senior counsel – Sri Vivek Subba Reddy appearing on behalf of learned counsel – Sri Rajesh .A for petitioner and learned counsel – Sri Sharath .S. Gowda for respondent. 2. The petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court seeking for a direction to the trial Court to dispose of I.A. No.1/2025 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC in O.S. No.128/2025 on the file of the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru rural district, Bengaluru. 3. It is the case of learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner that petitioner/plaintiff filed O.S. No.128/2025 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore rural district, Bangalore seeking to set aside the compromise decree in O.S. No. 1545/2023 on the file of the I - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:13500 WP No. 8993 of 2025 Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru rural district, Bengaluru and also for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. Alongwith the plaint, petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 seeking an ad interim Temporary Injunction restraining the respondent/ defendant from alienating, encumbering or creating any charge on the suit schedule property, pending disposal of the suit. The trial Court issued notice on the said application to the respondent/defendant and aggrieved by non-issuance of an order of Temporary Injunction, petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court seeking for a direction to the trial Court to dispose of I.A. No.1/2025 expeditiously, preferably within two weeks. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner while reiterating the grounds urged in the present petition and so also in the application filed before the trial Court, contends that the compromise petition in O.S. No.1545/2025 was filed by a person impersonating the petitioner/plaintiff and in view of fraud having been played, the judgment in the said suit is void ab initio. It is also contention of learned senior counsel that the suit was filed in January - 2025 and objections to I.A. No.1/2025 as well as written statement to the suit are filed on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:13500 WP No. 8993 of 2025 15.10.2025. Therefore, he seeks indulgence of this Court for protection and preservation of the property, failing which multiplicity of proceedings would arise creating 3rd party rights, which would affect petitioner’s rights in the suit. Being aggrieved by non-passing of orders on I.A. No.1/2025 for Temporary Injunction and being of the apprehension of alienation, encumbrance or creating 3rd party rights, the petitioner is before this Court for a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the said application expeditiously. 5. Per contra, learned counsel – Sri Sharath S. Gowda appearing for respondent vehemently contends that the suit filed by the petitioner itself is not maintainable and therefore, question of granting any interim order would not arise. He also brought to the notice of the Court the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure and so also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Trilok Nath Singh -vs- Anirudh Singh(D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.3961 of 2010 decided on May 06, 2020 (paragraph-21) to contend that even if the party approaching the Court is not a party to the compromise decree, he still have to file petition challenging compromise in the said proceedings by filing - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:13500 WP No. 8993 of 2025 miscellaneous application and there is a bar specified under Order XXXIX Rule 3A to file a separate suit. On this ground, he contends that interim order cannot be granted in this matter. He submits that he also filed objections and written statement in the original suit and parties shall cooperate for disposal of the suit in accordance with law. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsels for both partis and so also the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Trilok Nath Singh stated supra. 7. It is seen several serious allegations are made by the petitioner and respondent against each other. They are fraud, forgery, misrepresentation, impersonation and creating 3rd party rights by executing agreement of sale and cancellation of agreement of sale and therefore, all is not well in the suit and it cannot be decided in the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu -vs- Jagannath reported in (1994)1 SCC 1, wherein it - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:13500 WP No. 8993 of 2025 is held that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the Court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Nevertheless, this Court abstains from making any observations with regard to facts and circumstances of the present case. It is for the trial Court to deal with the matter independently after hearing both sides without being influenced by any of the opinion made by this Court in the present petition. 9. Under the circumstances, I pass the following: O R D E R (i) A direction is issued to the trial Court to dispose of I.A. No.1/2025 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC on the file of III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru rural district, Bengaluru within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of this order. (ii) Both parties shall maintain status quo as on today with regard to suit schedule property till the orders are passed by the trial Court on I.A. No.1/2025 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:13500 WP No. 8993 of 2025 (iii) It is needless to observe the trial Court shall decide the application on its merits independently without being influenced by any of the opinion made by this Court in the present petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE GSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37