- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51156 WP No. 34440 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 34440 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MRS. SHEELA T W/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 1486, 1ST C CROSS, 7TH MAIN ROAD, RPC LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 104. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR H, ADVOCATE) AND: MASTER YOHAN ACHUT S/O SRI. GIRISH T AGED ABOUT 06 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 1486, 1ST C CROSS, 7TH MAIN ROAD, RPC LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 104 SINCE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, SRI. GIRISH T AGED MAJOR, S/O LATE THIMMAPPA. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SANTHOSH N, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06/11/2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF VI ACC Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51156 WP No. 34440 of 2024 AND SJ, BANGALORE IN O.S.NO.5691/2023 ON IA NO. 1 AND 2/ 2023, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The present petition is filed by the plaintiff being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the trial Court on 06.11.2024, whereby the learned trial judge has rejected I.A.No.5 which was filed seeking extension of the ad-interim order granted by the trial Court on I.A.No.2 and for non- addressing of arguments on I.A.No.1. 3. The plaintiff had filed a suit against the defendant for the relief of declaration and other consequential reliefs. The plaintiff and defendant are sister and brother respectively. The suit is filed to declare the gift deed dated 02.09.2020 registered in favour of defendant in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Vijayanagara to be null and void and not binding on the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51156 WP No. 34440 of 2024 plaintiff. Along with the plaint, two applications came to be filed under Order XXXII Rule 3 of CPC to appoint guardian of the minor defendant to proceed further in the above case and another application I.A.No.2 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 for grant of temporary injunction and ad-interim restraining the defendant from alienating, encumbering and creating third party right in respect of the suit schedule property. At the time of hearing, I.A.No.2 by way of an ad-interim ex parte order, the trial Court granted the order restraining the defendant from alienating, encumbering and creating third party right in respect of the suit schedule property on 02.09.2023. Thereafter, the interim order was extended time and again. When the matter was listed on 06.11.2024, the plaintiff has filed I.A.No.5 seeking extension of the order temporary injunction granted. The learned trial judge has dismissed the said application-I.A.No.5 for extension of the interim order of temporary injunction on the ground that for the last two hearing dates, interim order was not extended and that plaintiff has not argued on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 when it was taken up to be heard. Hence on those grounds, the trial Court rejected the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51156 WP No. 34440 of 2024 application for extension of the interim order. It is this order that is questioned by the plaintiff. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant contends that there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the trial Court rejecting I.A.No.5 for extension of the ad-interim order. He sustains the impugned order and contends that the trial Court has given sufficient opportunity to the plaintiff to argue the application on I.A.Nos.1 and 2. But he did not come forward to argue despite taking an ad-interim order of temporary injunction on I.A.No.2, and has not got the interim order extended on two earlier occasions and has been taking time without arguing on the applications. Therefore, the trial Court is right in rejecting the applications as it cannot wait in eternity for the plaintiff to come before the Court to address arguments. When they are not inclined to do so, they may not be interested in seeking extension. Accordingly, the order impugned is sustainable and there is no illegality committed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. 6. The point that requires consideration is whether the impugned order dated 06.07.2024 is justifiable and does it call - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51156 WP No. 34440 of 2024 for interference. Admittedly, the trial judge had passed an ad- interim order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff on 02.09.2023 and it has been extended thereafter and for two occasions as per the order dated 06.7.2024, it was not extended. An application was filed by the plaintiff in I.A.No.5 to extend the interim order. The same came to be rejected on the ground that on two occasions, the interim order was not extended and the plaintiff has not bothered to argue on I.A.Nos.1 and 2. 7. On careful perusal of the impugned order, this may not be correct procedure for the trial Court to adopt while extending the interim order. The interim order stands till the time it is vacated or altered by the trial Court. The rejection of the application for extension of the interim order leaves the interim order in limbo without the same being vacated. Therefore, unless the interim order is vacated, heard and rejected, it will be considered as kept pending. Therefore, the trial Court has not followed the correct procedure in disposing the application. The trial Court could have heard the matter and then decided the application on merits, which it has not done. It has merely rejected the application seeking extension of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51156 WP No. 34440 of 2024 interim order. So thereby, the interim order which was granted earlier stands on record. Therefore, the proper procedure for the trial Court would be to hear the application, if there is no presence of the plaintiff to hear on merits, if the defendant intends to argue and pass an order on merit by providing proper reasoning rather than merely rejecting the extension and not vacating the interim order. The trial Court is duty bound and obligated to pass an order on I.A.No.2 on merits, whether the plaintiff appears or not. 8. Under those circumstances, the impugned order is unsustainable, the same calls for interference. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. This petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 06.11.2024 passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.5691/2023 is hereby set aside. iii. The trial Court shall hear the applications on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 to provide an opportunity to the plaintiff and defendant. If either of them does not - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51156 WP No. 34440 of 2024 appear, the trial Court is at liberty to pass orders on the merits. iv. Till then, the interim order which was granted earlier stands extended till disposal of the application by the trial Court in accordance with law on merits. v. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE rv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4