- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49447 WP No. 33948 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 33948 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. PREMA G.T, W/O LATE NAGARAJU H., AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 2. SRI. NIRANJAN N., S/O LATE NAGARAJU H., AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, BOTH 1 AND 22 R/AT NO. 267 MARUTHI NILAYA, CDSPO OPP ROAD, GUBBI HUCHAPPA LAYOUT, SUBHASH NAGAR, NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL, KARNATAKA - 562 123. 3. SMT. SHILPA V. N, D/O LATE NAGARAJU H, W/O RAVI PRASAD C.R. AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT THOTADA MANE, NEAR GOVERNMANT HIGH SCHOOL, KUNIGAL MAIN ROAD, A.K. KAVAL, VADDARAHALLI GULURU HOBALI, TUMKUR - 572 122. …PETITIONERS (BY MS. NIKHITHA H.S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SADANAND G. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49447 WP No. 33948 of 2025 AND: 1. SMT. HONNAMMA W/O LATE SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 91 YEARS, R/A VEERASAGARA, SIRIGIRIPURA, MAGADI RAMANAGAR, KARNATAKA - 561 101. 2. SMT. MAYAMMA, W/O, LATE SRI. BHAIRANNA., AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 3. SMT. YASHODHA, D/O, LATE SRI. BHAIRANNA., AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 4. SRI. RAMAKRISHNA, S/O, LATE SRI. BHAIRANNA., AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 5. SRI. ANAND, S/O, LATE SRI. BHAIRANNA., AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 5 R/A NO. 45, 2ND CROSS ROAD, BEHIND MORISON LIMITED, BUDHADHA JYOTHI LAYOUT, CHIKKABIDARAKALLU, RAMANAGARA - 560 073. 6. SRI. GOPALAIAH., S/O, LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49447 WP No. 33948 of 2025 R/A VEERASAGARA, SIRIGIRIPURA, MAGADI RAMANAGAR, KARNATAKA - 561 101 7. SRI. CHANDRAPPA H., S/O, LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/A, 3870, 3RD CROSS, NEAR RAMAMANDIRA ROAD, GAYATHRINAGAR, SRIRAMPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 021. 8. SRI. GANGEGOWDA H., S/O, LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/A VEERASAGARA, SIRIGIRIPURA, MAGADI RAMANAGAR, KARNATAKA - 561 101. 9. SRI. PARAMESHI., S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/A VEERASAGARA, SIRIGIRIPURA, MAGADI, RAMANAGAR, KARNATAKA - 561 101. 10. SRI. HANUMAIAH V H., S/O, LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/A VEERASAGARA, SIRIGIRIPURA, MAGADI, RAMANAGAR, KARNATAKA - 561101. 11. SMT. RASHMI G., W/O, SRI. MAHESH S. N., - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49447 WP No. 33948 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/A, SRIGIRIPURA, RAMANAGAR, KARNATAKA - 561 101. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITTUION OF INIDA PRAYING TO I. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR THE LIKE, BY SETTING ASIDE ORDER DATED 27-09-2025, PASSED BY THE HONBLE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT MAGADI IN O.S.NO.692/2025, AT ANNEXURE- A ON I.A. NO. 01/2025 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 counsel Ms.Nikhitha, on behalf of the petitioners. 2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are defendants before the Trial Court. The prayer sought in this petition is as under: "i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or the like, by setting aside order dated 27-09-2025, passed by the Hon'ble Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, at Magadi in O.S.No.692/2025, at Annexure 'A' on I.A. No. 01/2025; - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49447 WP No. 33948 of 2025 ii. Issue an order of Temporary Injunction against the Respondents from alienating/ encumbering or changing the nature of land over the 'Petition Schedule Properties' including a direction to the Respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petition Schedule Properties; iii. Grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble court deems fit in favour of the Petitioner under the facts and circumstances of the case including an award as to costs in the interest of justice and equity." 3. This Court does not find the need or necessity to issue notice to respondents/defendants for the reason that the order impugned before this Court is against the order of the trial Court for non-consideration of the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC and the issuance of emergent notice on I.A.Nos.1 and 2. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs that the plaintiff had filed the suit for partition and separate possession and other consequential reliefs. Along with the plaint, two applications came to be filed i.e., I.A.Nos.1 and 2 seeking an ad-interim order of temporary injunction not to alienate or encumber or create, change or alter the nature of the suit schedule property in I.A.No.1 and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49447 WP No. 33948 of 2025 I.A. No.2 is filed for a direction to the defendants not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property to the extent of the 1/8th share of the plaintiffs. The trial Court has not passed any order either granting or refusing the ad-interim order of temporary injunction. But as merely said, "it is necessary to hear the other side before passing any order on I.A.Nos.1 and 2, so also the principles of natural justice require that the other side should be heard before passing any order. In the circumstances, issue emergent notice on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 and suit summons to all defendants returnable by 23.10.2025". 5. The petitioners/plaintiffs are aggrieved by this order and have approached this Court. As stated earlier, this Court is not inclined to issue notice to the respondents/defendants for the reason that this Court is inclined to remit this matter back to the trial Court for consideration of the applications i.e., I.A.Nos.1 and 2 afresh for the following reasons. When an application is filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 of CPC along with the plaint, seeking an ad-interim order of temporary injunction, the trial Court is obliged to consider the application, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49447 WP No. 33948 of 2025 keeping in mind the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC and the proviso thereto. In the present case on hand, the trial Court has not adverted to the averments made in the affidavit annexed to the applications I.A.Nos.1 and 2 and has merely stated that it is necessary to hear the other side before passing orders and that the principles of natural justice require the other side to be heard before passing any order, which is not the rule of law and the object of the legislature while making such a provision under Order XXXIX Rule 3 and the proviso, which was amended in 1977. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Shiv Kumar Chadha V/s Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others reported in (1993) 3 Supreme Court Cases 161, and Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow V/s State of U.P. and Others reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1674, it is necessary that the trial court reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders on the applications i.e., I.A.Nos.1 and 2. It is submitted that the notice to the defendants is yet to be served before the trial Court. The trial Court shall consider grant or rejection of ad- - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49447 WP No. 33948 of 2025 interim injunction prior to issuance of notice and the same shall be done by providing proper reasoning in the order that would be passed by the trial Court. It is no doubt that the trial Court is at liberty to pass any orders either granting or rejecting the ad-interim order. Nevertheless, the trial Court is duty bound and obligated to provide reasons for grant or rejection of the ad-interim order which has not been done in the present case. The trial Court cannot shirk itself from stating that the principles of natural justice requires the other side should be heard, as no such thing is contemplated in the provisions under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC and the proviso therein. The trial Court is obligated and duty-bound to pass orders and there is no option for the trial Court to say that notice is to be served to the other side before hearing, it has to either grant or reject by providing proper reasoning on the said application. It is also needless to mention that the trial Court need not conduct a mini trial. The trial Court has to only consider the applications on the basic fundamental requirements of prima facie case, balance of convenience and hardship that would be caused to the aggrieved party and look into the averments made in the affidavit before passing the orders. In the present case on - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49447 WP No. 33948 of 2025 hand, no such thing has been done. Hence, the trial Court would have to reconsider and pass fresh orders. If the defendants are not served, it can proceed to pass an ad-interim ex parte order either grant or rejection of the same. If the defendants are served and appear before the Court, the trial Court shall decide the applications within a week's time from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is disposed of. ii. The trial Court, i.e., Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Magadi, is directed to consider the applications i.e., on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.692/2025, on the basis of the observations made by this Court as expeditiously as possible. iii. The petitioners/plaintiffs are at liberty to advance the matter and move the Court for an expeditious order on the applications i.e., I.A.Nos.1 and 2. iv. In the meanwhile, the parties to the proceedings shall maintain status quo with regard to the suit schedule - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49447 WP No. 33948 of 2025 properties till the applications are decided by the trial Court. v. Petitioner to comply the requirements of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC. Order accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE rv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6