- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45436 WP No. 31692 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 31692 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI B.D. KULKARNI S/O D.B. KULKARNI AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS NO.150A, 29TH CROSS RAJAJINAGAR II BLOCK BENGALURU - 560 010 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: NO.15/A, 7TH CROSS I MAIN, PRASHANTH NAGAR HOUSING BOARD COLONY MAGADI ROAD BENGALURU - 560 079. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VARAPRASAD K, ADV.) AND: SRI L. NARAYAN S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH NAIDU AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT NO.14/A, IST FLOOR 4TH CROSS, MAGADI MAIN ROAD BANGALORE - 560 023 REPRESENTED BY HIS G.P.A. HOLDER SRI N VENKATESH S/O LATE A NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO.14/1A, IST FLOOR 4TH LEFT SIDE CROSS MAGADI MAIN ROAD BANGALORE - 560 023. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRADEEP NAIK K, ADV.) Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45436 WP No. 31692 of 2019 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 3.7.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED VII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, ON I.A.NO.1 FILED BY THE PETITONER U/S 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEFURE, IN MISC.PETITON NO.589/2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION BY GRANTING THE RELIEF AS SOUGHT THEREIN. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 03.07.2019 passed on I.A.No.I in Misc.No.589 of 2010 by the Court of VII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Suit in O.S.No.6291 of 2007 was filed by the respondent herein against the petitioner seeking the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. It appears that during the pendency of the said suit, there was an interim order operating against the defendant restraining him from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. It appears that O.S.No. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45436 WP No. 31692 of 2019 6291 of 2007 was decreed on 30.06.2010 and the appeal filed against the said judgment and decree by the defendant was dismissed. Misc. petition No.589 of 2010 was filed before the trial Court after the suit was decreed, alleging that, the interim order of temporary injunction was violated by the defendant. In the said proceedings, I.A.No.I was filed under Section 151 of CPC by the petitioner seeking to reject Misc. petition on the ground that the same is not maintainable. The trial Court vide the order impugned has rejected I.A.No.I and therefore petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that suit in O.S.No.6291 of 2007 was decreed on 30.06.2010. Misc. petition under Order XXXIX Rule 2A R/w Section 151 of CPC is subsequently filed on 31.07.2010, after disposal of the suit. The trial Court had become functus officio and therefore it could not have entertained a Misc.No.589 of 2010. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that during the pendency of the suit itself, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC was filed on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45436 WP No. 31692 of 2019 behalf of the plaintiff. As on the day, the suit was decreed, the said application was pending, and no orders were passed on the said application. It is under these circumstances, separate proceedings in Misc.No.589 of 2010 has been filed on behalf of plaintiff in O.S.No.6291 of 2007. He submits that in the event this Court arrives at a conclusion that the present proceedings is not maintainable, the respondent herein may be granted liberty to reopen O.S.No.6291 of 2007 for the purpose of considering the application in I.A.No.IV, filed in O.S.No.6291 of 2007 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A R/w Section 151 of CPC. 6. It is not in dispute that the proceedings in Misc.No.589 of 2010 has been initiated under Order XXXIX Rule 2A R/w Section 151 of CPC by the respondent herein after the disposal of O.S.No.6291 of 2007 by the Court of VII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. The trial Court had become functus officio as on the said day and therefore it could not have entertained Misc.No.589 of 2010 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A R/w Section 151 of CPC, wherein the allegation is about violating the order of temporary injunction which was operating during the pendency of the suit. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45436 WP No. 31692 of 2019 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KANWAR SINGH SAINI V. HIGH COURT OF DELHI - (2012) 4 SCC 307, at paragraph No.17 has observed as follows. “17. Application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC lies only where disobedience/breach of an injunction granted or order complained of was one that is granted by the court under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, which is naturally to enure during the pendency of the suit. However, once a suit is decreed, the interim order, if any, merges into the final order. No litigant can derive any benefit from mere pendency of case in a court of law, as the interim order always merges in the final order to be passed in the case and if the case is ultimately dismissed, the interim order stands nullified automatically. (Vide A.R. Sircar v. State of U.P. [1993 Supp (2) SCC 734 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 896 : (1993) 24 ATC 832], Shiv Shanker v. U.P. SRTC [1995 Supp (2) SCC 726 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 1018 : (1995) 30 ATC 317], Arya Nagar Inter College v. Sree Kumar Tiwary [(1997) 4 SCC 388 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 967 : AIR 1997 SC 3071], GTC 5 2024 SCC OnLine 3538 6 (1992) 1 SCC 719 7 (2012) 4 SCC 307 CA 13999/2024 Page 12 of 22 Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [(1998) 3 SCC 376 : AIR 1998 SC 1566] and Jaipur Municipal Corpn. v. C.L. Mishra [(2005) 8 SCC 423].)" 8. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the trial Court was not at all justified in rejecting I.A.No.I filed under Section 151 of CPC, wherein a contention has been raised with regard to maintainability of the petition filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC, after disposal of the suit. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45436 WP No. 31692 of 2019 Therefore, I am of the opinion that Order impugned cannot be sustained. 9. Accordingly the following:- ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 03.07.2019 passed on I.A.No.I in Misc.No.589 of 2010 by the Court of VII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is set aside and consequently the prayer made in the said application is granted and it is held that Misc.No.589 of 2010 which was filed under Section 151 of CPC, after disposal of O.S.No.6291 of 2007 before the trial court is not maintainable. The plaintiff is at liberty to request the trial Court to consider I.ANo.IV filed in O.S.No.6291 of 2007 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A R/w Section 151 of CPC, if the same is permissible in law. (iii) All contentions urged by both parties are left open - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45436 WP No. 31692 of 2019 Pending IAs' do not survive for consideration and accordingly the same are disposed of. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40