- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32404 WP No. 586 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. 586 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MR. N.M. SHASHIKUMAR S/O LATE N. MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O KANNIKA APARTMENTS, HOUSE NO.B-3, III FLOOR, VIDATRI BHAVAN HOTEL BACKSIDE, VINOBANAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA-577204. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHYAM SUNDAR M.S., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR MISS. VANDANA P.L., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DR. PRADEEP K P S/O K.R. PANDITARADHYA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O CHANDRAKALA, H.NO.395, 1ST CROSS, TILAK NAGARA, NEAR RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT, SHIVAMOGGA-577204. 2. ABDUL KHALEEL S/O LATE ABDUL KHADER SAB, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/O SHAHABAJ MANZIL, ANANDA RAO EXTN, THAWQUA MASJID ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA-577202. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32404 WP No. 586 of 2025 (BY SRI. P.N. HARISH, ADVOCATE FOR CC/R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.10.2024 PASSED IN M.A NO.20/2024 ON IA.NO.1 BY THE LEARNED PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, AT SHIVAMOGGA, MA FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN SEEKING TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 26-06-2024 passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.228 of 2024 and the order of the first appellate Court dated 19-10-2024 passed in M.A.20 of 2024. 2. Heard Sri Shyam Sundar M S, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri P N Harish, learned counsel appearing for caveator/respondent No.1. 3. The petitioner is defendant No.2, the 1st respondent is the plaintiff. The plaintiff institutes a suit in O.S.No.228 of 2024 seeking injunction against the defendants. As observed - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32404 WP No. 586 of 2025 hereinabove, the petitioner is the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 seeking temporary injunction of restraint against the defendant. 4. The petitioner/2nd defendant files an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the CPC seeking vacation of the order of temporary injunction. After hearing the parties, the application filed under Order 39 Rule 4 of the CPC comes to be rejected and the application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 comes to be partly allowed, granting an order of status quo and not a complete restraint or injunction. 5. This is called in question by the plaintiff before the first appellate Court on the score that the injunction ought to have been granted and not an order of status quo. The first appellate Court, answering the appeal, grants an order of injunction against the respondents. The 2nd defendant in the suit and the appeal, is before this Court calling the said order in question. 6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would take this Court through the documents appended to the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32404 WP No. 586 of 2025 petition to demonstrate that right and title over the suit schedule property has flown in favour of the petitioner in accordance with law, long before the plaintiff secured the right and title over the suit schedule property. He would submit that the concerned Court ought not to have granted an order of status quo and status quo would not amount to an order under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and, if it would not be an order, the first appellate Court should not have entertained the appeal, as the appeal was not maintainable. On all these scores, he would seek to project the order to be set aside and the concerned court to decide the suit itself. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri P.N. Harish appearing for the 1st respondent/plaintiff would vehemently refute the submission to contend that the vendor of the plaintiff was conferred the site by the State on account of acquisition of her property on being a land loser. The acquisition was challenged and comes to be set aside. However, the grant of site was not revoked or restored back to the hands of the State, as the acquisition itself is set aside. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32404 WP No. 586 of 2025 8. The vendor of the plaintiff sells the property to the plaintiff. Owing to certain interference from the hands of the present defendants, the suit is preferred. The suit is at large before the concerned Court. What is now operating is an injunction against the defendants granted by the first appellate Court. The reason so rendered by the first appellate Court or the trial court as the case would be is to protect the interest of the parties in the balance of convenience directing parties to maintain a status quo. 9. The order of the first appellate Court dated 19-10-2024 granting injunction is subsisting even today. the petition itself being preferred on 06-01-2025 and the same was languishing before the Court without compliance of office objections. In the meanwhile, the construction in the property progressed. In the light of the progression, the only relief that could be granted now is a direction to the concerned Court to hear the parties and dispose the suit itself within an outer limit of 6 months. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32404 WP No. 586 of 2025 10. The petition stands disposed. The concerned Court is directed to dispose the suit within an outer limit of 6 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties are at liberty to file necessary application before the concerned Court seeking appropriate reliefs in the interregnum, if need arises. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BKP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 78