- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17386 WP No. 108086 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.108086 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. ANAND S/O *GURAPPA KUMBAR, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MUGALKHOD VILLAGE, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT-591 235. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. PAVAN B. DODDATTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SIDDAPPA S/O PARAMANAD DANGI, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MUGALKHOD VILLAGE, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT-591 235. 2. SMT. MAHADEVI W/O *SANGAPPA DANGI, AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MUGALKHOD VILLAGE, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT-591 235. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIJAYKUMAR B. HORATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.04.2024 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDHOL AT MUDHOL IN O.S. NO.148/2022 ON IA NO.I ORDER AS PER ANNEXURE-A BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING/SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.09.2025 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDHOL IN M.A. NO.09/2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-B BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. *Corrected vide Court Order dated 17.12.2025 Sd/- (ARHJ) Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.12.18 15:23:19 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17386 WP No. 108086 of 2025 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) 1. Shri Chetan Munnoli, learned counsel has filed vakalat on behalf of respondent No.2. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2. 3. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 19.04.2024 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.148/2022 by learned Additional Civil Judge, Mudhol, wherein, defendant No.1 is restrained from alienating the petition property in favour of petitioner-defendant No.2. 4. The petitioner-defendant No.2 claims that he has entered into an agreement for sale on 30.12.2021 with defendant No.1 to purchase the property. The - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17386 WP No. 108086 of 2025 suit for specific performance is filed based on a registered agreement for sale dated 07.04.2014 said to have been executed by deceased husband of defendant No.1. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the time stipulated in the agreement for sale dated 07.04.2014 was three years from the date of agreement and the agreement for sale has not resulted into a registered sale deed within three years from the date of agreement. It is his further submission that original vendor died in the year 2018 and no suit is filed seeking specific performance till his lifetime. Later, defendant No.1- wife of the original vendor, has entered into an agreement for sale on 30.12.2021 in favour of the petitioner and in a suit for specific performance filed in OS No.148/2022 by the original agreement holder and defendant No.1 is restrained from alienating the suit property to the petitioner. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17386 WP No. 108086 of 2025 6. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that in case, the petitioner purchases the property during the pending suit, he will be bound by the rule of lis pendens. Thus, it is his contention that order of injunction could not have been granted given the fact that prima facie the suit is time barred. 7. Learned counsel for contesting respondent No.1 would submit that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. The plaintiff’s agreement is a registered agreement for sale and the petitioner is not a bona fide purchaser. He has entered into an agreement knowing fully well that the property is already agreed to be sold in favour of the plaintiff under the agreement dated 07.04.2014, as such, the Trial Court is justified in granting the relief of temporary injunction. 8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would submit that respondent No.2 has entered into - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17386 WP No. 108086 of 2025 an agreement for sale and is willing to sell the property to the petitioner. 9. It is admitted that the petitioner is already in possession of the property. 10. This being the possession, without entering into the merits of the claim of either of the parties relating to the agreement for sale dated 07.04.2014 and 30.12.2021, the Court is of the view that subject to the result of the suit, respondent No.2 be permitted to sell the property to the petitioner. However, the petitioner shall not alienate the property till the disposal of the suit and shall not create any third party right. 11. Merely because sale deed is permitted in favour of the petitioner, it should not be construed as having reflected on the merits of the claim of the petitioner under the agreement for sale dated 30.12.2021 or having reflected anything on the merits or - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17386 WP No. 108086 of 2025 otherwise of the claim of the plaintiff under the agreement dated 07.04.2014. 12. The claim of either of the parties shall be decided without being influenced by any of the observations made in the order granting injunction passed by the Trial Court or the order passed by this Court as well as the Appellate Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No.9/2024. 13. The sale transaction, if takes place, shall be result of the suit. With above observation, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE AM/- CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 13