- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32375 WP No. 4348 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 4348 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. DR. ROOPA HARIANI W/O LATE DR. SAMEER HARIANI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.2, “SAI PRABHU” NO.8, SIRUR PARK, ‘B’ STREET SHESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-560 020. 2. SRI. RITIK HARIANI S/O LATE DR. SAMEER HARIANI, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.2, “SAI PRABHU” NO.8, SIRUR PARK, ‘B’ STREET SHESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE-560 020 REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND HIS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SMT. ROOPA HARIANI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. N. LAKSHMIKANTHA S/O NARAYANASWAMY S AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.14 RAMAKRISHNA STREET SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU-560 020. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32375 WP No. 4348 of 2025 2. SMT. VIJAYA KUBATUR W/O N. LAKSHMIKANTHA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.14 RAMAKRISHNA STREET SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU-560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BALAKRISHNA K., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 19.12.2024 PASSED IN OS.NO.9036/2024 BY THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-11) BENGALURU WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-D AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Petitioners - defendants are before this Court calling in question an order dated 19.12.2024, passed by the VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-11), Bengaluru, whereby, an application – I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 r/w. Section 151 of the CPC, seeking an order of attachment before judgment, in O.S.No.9036/2024, before appearance of the defendants is considered and directed to furnish security of `41/- lakhs. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32375 WP No. 4348 of 2025 2. Heard Sri Sanjay Krishna V., learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Balakrishna K., learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 3. Plaintiffs institute a suit for recovery of money before the concerned Court. While issuing notice to the petitioners – defendants, the concerned Court directs attachment of the property as a security to the claim of the plaintiffs of `41/- lakhs along with summons of the suit. Therefore, the order impugned is an order passed ex parte, without hearing the present petitioners – defendants and before the appearance of the defendants. The passing of the ex parte order of attachment is what has driven the petitioners – defendants to this Court, in the subject petition. 4. On the short score that the order being ex parte, I deem it appropriate to direct the concerned Court to hear both the parties and pass necessary orders on the application – I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 r/w. Section 151 of the CPC seeking an order for attachment of the property prior to the rendering of the judgment. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32375 WP No. 4348 of 2025 5. For the aforesaid reason, the following: ORDER a. The writ petition is allowed. b. The order dated 19.12.2024, passed by the VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-11) Bengaluru, insofar as it directs the petitioners – defendants to furnish security to the extent of ₹41/- lakhs, stands quashed. c. The concerned Court shall hear both the parties and pass necessary orders on the application – I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 r/w. Section 151 of the CPC seeking an order for attachment of the property prior to the rendering of the judgment, in accordance with law, within an outer limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. d. Till the consideration of I.A.No.1 the petitioners shall not alienate the properties to the tune of ₹41,00,000/- of the claim. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63