- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50733 WP No. 26999 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 26999 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. MARKANDEY SINGH AGED 40 YEARS, S/O MR. MADAN MOHAN SINGH, 2. AKANKSHA SINGH AGED 37 YEARS, W/O MARKANDEY SINGH, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT: C1105, NITESH FOREST HILLS, SEEGEHALLI ROAD, SH 35, KADUGODI, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560 067. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ANAND.M.SHOLAPURMATH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VENKATESH.D S/O LATE DASAPPA, RESIDING AT NO 2. ANJANA NAGARA, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, VISHWANEEDAM POST, BENGALURU-91. 2. RAJANNA. R. S/O LATE MUNIRANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT 13, 5TH CROSS, KATRIGUPPE EAST, CHANNAMMANA KERE ACHKATTU, BENGALURU-85. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by S NOORUNNISABEGUM Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50733 WP No. 26999 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.08.2025, PASSED ON I.A. NO.1 IN O.S. NO. 918/2025 (ANNEXURE-A), REFUSING TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AND FURTHER GRANT THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENT, GRANT AN APPROPRIATE DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR CERTIORARI DIRECTING THE TRIAL COURT TO RECONSIDER THE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER 1. The present petition has been filed seeking to challenge an order dated 13.08.2025 in O.S.No.918/2025 passed by the learned I Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru (“hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’). 2. By the Impugned Order, the learned Trial Court has held that the petitioners/plaintiffs have not made out a prima facie case for the grant of an ex parte injunction and has, accordingly, directed the issuance of emergent notice to the respondents/defendants through the Court and by registered post acknowledgment due. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50733 WP No. 26999 of 2025 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs submits that, as on date, the defendants have not been served. He states that he is in the process of taking out newspaper publication for their service. 4. In addition learned counsel contends that the learned Trial Court has not any provided any reasons for not allowing the ex parte injunction and has passed a direction that the Court is of an opinion that the plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs submits that the suit property was purchased by the petitioner’s/plaintiff’s husband by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 02.06.2018 which is registered in Book No.1, Document No.PNY-1-01632- 2018-19, CD.No.PNYD695, at Sub Registrar office, Peenya. 6. He submits that since the date of his purchase he has been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the scheduled property, however the defendants have recently started disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioners/plaintiffs. He submits that even though the registered sale deed has been produced the Trial Court has - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50733 WP No. 26999 of 2025 declined the same and has not granted any injunction to the petitioners. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs have taken us through the plaint as well as through the sale deed dated 07.08.2025 in respect of suit schedule property which is as under: “SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of property bearing its Site no.3 Khata 695/80/3/136 formed in converted land bearing its Sy No.8 (New Sy.No.80/3) vide conversion order no. ALN(NY)SR 5/2010-11, situated at Kodigehally Village, Yeshavanthapura Hobli Bengaluru North Taluk, Measuring East to West (30+30.6)/2 Sq.fts and North to South 44.1+39.6)/2 Sq.fts totally measuring 1268 fts. And bounded on East by : Site No.4, West by: Site No.2 North by: Road South by: Sy No.81” 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs has stated to be the owner of the suit schedule property in terms of registered sale deed. Thus his prima facie title has been made out. However the impugned order sets out that the plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case and has thus declined to issue an ex parte injunction. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50733 WP No. 26999 of 2025 9. In addition, this Court agrees with the learned counsel for the petitioner that for declining an injunction, findings must be given. 10. It is settled law that any order of a Court must contain findings. The Supreme Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta1 has held that it is the duty of the Court to ensure that reasons are provided in the order so as to introduce clarity in the order indicating the application of mind thereby avoiding arbitrariness in the decision. It was held that the failure to give reasons amounts to a denial of justice. The relevant extract is reproduced below:- “11. It is settled law that reasons must be given for every judgment passed by a Court. The Supreme Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta has held that it is the duty of the Court to ensure that reasons are provided in the order so as to introduce clarity in the order indicating the application of mind thereby avoiding arbitrariness in the decision. It was held that the failure to give reasons amounts to a denial of justice. The relevant extract is below:- "8. "5. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, 1 (2009) 12 SCC 609 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50733 WP No. 26999 of 2025 howsoever brief. in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the [High Court's judgment] not sustainable. 6. Even in respect of administrative orders. Lord Denning. M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union [(1971) 2 QB 175: (1971) 2 WLR 742: (1971) 1 All ER 1148 (CA)] observed: (WLR p. 750 G). 'The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree [1974 ICR 120] it was observed: Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at.' Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the 'inscrutable face of the sphinx', it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reasons is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50733 WP No. 26999 of 2025 mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking-out. The inscrutable face of a sphinx is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance." [Emphasis supplied] 10.1. The proposition of law that reasoning is required to be given in judicial pronouncements and by authorities, even for quasi-judicial decisions has been discussed in detail in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. & Anr. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors.2. The relevant extract is set out below: "47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds: (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. 2 (2010) 9 SCC 496 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50733 WP No. 26999 of 2025 (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi- judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decisionmaker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision- making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50733 WP No. 26999 of 2025 (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision- making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision- making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37].) (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)], wherein the Court - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50733 WP No. 26999 of 2025 referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions". (0) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "due process"." [Emphasis supplied] 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs submits that the order of the Trial Court is without any finding and given the circumstances and in view of the evidence produced of the petitioner/plaintiff's title, the Court was required to examine the plaint as well as the documents prior to passing the Impugned Order. This has clearly not been done. 12. In these circumstances, this Court deals apposite to set aside the Court order and with a direction to the learned Trial Court to examine the plaint and the documents and pass a reasoned speaking order on the prayer of the petitioners/plaintiffs for grant of an ex parte ad interim injunction. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50733 WP No. 26999 of 2025 13. The petition is allowed in the aforegoing terms. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: High Court of Karnataka