- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10633 WP No. 3428 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.3428 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI SURESHA HA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O. ASHWATHAIAH, PARTNER, M/S. SANJEEVENI PROJECTS, NO.2/1, AV GOWDA GREENS, 1ST CROSS, GREEN GARDEN LAYOUT, KUNDALAHALLI GATE, MARATH HALLI, BENGALURU-560 037 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. D. NAGARAJA., ADVOCATE) AND: MR RAFIQ SHARIFF AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O. ISMAIL SHARIFF, NO.210, 2ND FLOOR, CHARAN HABITAT, DEENA BANK COLONY, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SREENIVASAN K., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.01.2026 PASSED ON I.A.NO.6 IN O.S.NO.2588/2025 BY THE HON'BLE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KRISHNARAJAPURAM, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10633 WP No. 3428 of 2026 ORAL ORDER This petition by the defendant in O.S.No.2588/2025 is directed against the impugned order dated 22.01.2026 whereby the application I.A.No.VI filed by the petitioner under Order XII Rule 6 CPC seeking dismissal of the suit based on an alleged admission made by the plaintiff was rejected by the Trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent – plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner – defendant for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable properties. The said suit having been contested by the petitioner – defendant, the respondent-plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and at the stage of cross-examination of PW1 instead of proceeding with the cross- examination, the petitioner – defendant filed the instant application seeking dismissal of the suit on the basis of alleged admission made by the plaintiff in his evidence. The said application having been opposed by the plaintiff, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10633 WP No. 3428 of 2026 impugned order rejecting the application by coming to the conclusion that the disputed questions of fact and contentious issues as regards possession, title, etc., that arise between the parties would necessarily have to be decided only after a full- fledged trial and not by way of application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The Trial Court also came to the correct conclusion that there is no unambiguous, clear, definite, certain admission in the pleadings or evidence of the petitioner so as to give a closure to the suit without providing opportunity to both parties to prove their respective claims during the course of trial. In other words, the Trial Court has correctly and fairly considered and appreciated the entire material on record as regards categorical findings to the effect that the claim of the petitioner is beyond the scope, ambit and parameters of the provisions contained under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and consequently, since no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, who would be permitted to put-forth all those contentions during the course of trial, the application filed by the petitioner cannot be accepted by holding as under: “ORDER ON I.A. No VI FILED UNDER ORDER XII RULE 6 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE The defendant has filed the present application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, seeking a judgment - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10633 WP No. 3428 of 2026 dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff on the basis of the admissions allegedly made by him, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the defendant states that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff had filed I.A. No. 4 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, seeking a direction from this Court to remove the single-brick compound wall constructed from north to south, allegedly encroaching a few meters onto the suit schedule property. The plaintiff further filed I.A. No. V under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC, seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner for the purpose of identification, noting physical features, and surveying to determine the extent of encroachment. Further, in the examination-in- chief of the plaintiff filed by way of affidavit and sworn before this Court as P.W.1, at paragraph No. 18, the plaintiff stated as follows: “In the month of July, the defendant violated the court orders by entering the schedule property on the western side of my property with his workers and dismantled a portion of the boundary wire fence that I had put up for our property, and the defendant constructed a single-brick compound wall from north to south and encroached a few meters of my valuable property. The exact area needs to be estimated after due measurement…” Though the defendant has not admitted the allegations of encroachment made by the plaintiff, the plaintiff, in his statement, has clearly and unequivocally stated that the suit schedule property was encroached - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10633 WP No. 3428 of 2026 upon prior to the filing of the above suit. On these averments, the defendant prays that the application be allowed and the plaintiff’s suit be dismissed. 3. The plaintiff has filed detailed objections denying the contents of the application. It is further contended that by filing this application, the defendant has, in fact, admitted that he encroached upon the suit schedule property in breach of the temporary injunction order. It is further contended that on 11-09-2018, the plaintiff had filed a suit before the Hon’ble CCH-29 along with I.A. No. I seeking temporary injunction, and on the next day, the Court granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, in the month of July 2019, the defendant violated the injunction order and constructed a compound wall encroaching upon the plaintiff’s property. Accordingly, the plaintiff has initiated contempt proceedings against the defendant. In light of these facts, the plaintiff prays for rejection of the application. 4. I have heard the arguments of defendant side. Perused the written arguments of plaintiff and material on record. 5. The following points that are arise for consideration: 1) Whether the defendant has made out valid and sufficient grounds to allow the application? 2) What order? 6. The above points are answered as under: Point No.1: In the Negative - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10633 WP No. 3428 of 2026 Point No.2: As per final order, for the following: R E A S O N S 7. Point No.1:- The plaintiff has instituted the present suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff asserts that he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property and that the defendant has attempted to interfere with such possession. When the matter was posted for cross-examination of P.W.1, the defendant filed the present application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying that the suit be dismissed by passing a judgment on admission, allegedly made by the plaintiff in his affidavit filed in lieu of examination-in-chief. 8. In the affidavit of evidence filed by P.W.1, the plaintiff stated that the defendant had entered upon the suit schedule property and, in violation of the orders of the Court, dismantled a portion of the boundary wire fence and constructed a single-brick compound wall from north to south, thereby encroaching upon a few meters of the plaintiff’s property. The plaintiff further stated that the exact extent of encroachment could be ascertained only after proper measurement. Relying on this statement, the defendant contends that the plaintiff has admitted that the defendant is in possession of a portion of the suit schedule property and, therefore, the plaintiff is not in possession of the entire suit property as on the date of the suit. On this - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10633 WP No. 3428 of 2026 premise, the defendant seeks dismissal of the suit for permanent injunction by invoking Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC. 9. Per contra, the plaintiff has stoutly opposed the application and contended that there is no admission whatsoever warranting the dismissal of the suit. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that on 11-09-2018, he had instituted the suit before the Hon’ble CCH-29 along with I.A. No. I seeking an order of temporary injunction. The Court, upon consideration, granted an order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff on the very next day. It is further contended that during the subsistence of the said injunction order, in the month of July 2019, the defendant willfully violated the order of the Court and encroached upon a portion of the suit schedule property by constructing a compound wall. On account of such violation, the plaintiff has also initiated contempt proceedings against the defendant. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, the statement made in the examination-in-chief cannot be construed as an admission disentitling him to the relief of permanent injunction. 10. Before examining the rival contentions, it is apposite to refer to the scope and ambit of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC. The said provision enables the Court to pronounce a judgment on the basis of admissions made by a party, either in the pleadings or otherwise, at any stage of the suit. However, the power under this provision is discretionary in nature and is required to be exercised with great caution. It is a settled principle of law that for a - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10633 WP No. 3428 of 2026 judgment to be passed on admission, the admission must be clear, categorical, unambiguous, and unconditional. Any admission which is capable of more than one interpretation, or which is qualified or explained by surrounding circumstances, cannot be made the foundation for passing a decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC. 11. It is equally well settled that the pleadings, affidavits, or statements relied upon as admissions must be read as a whole and in their proper context. Courts have consistently held that stray or isolated sentences cannot be picked out of a document or deposition and treated as conclusive admissions, ignoring the overall case of the party making such statements. The underlying object of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC is to expedite the disposal of cases where there is no real dispute between the parties on material facts. It is not intended to short-circuit a trial in cases where disputed questions of fact require evidence and adjudication. 12. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the statement made by P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief does not amount to an unequivocal admission that the defendant was in lawful possession of a portion of the suit schedule property on the date of filing of the suit. On the contrary, the plaintiff’s consistent case is that he was in possession of the suit schedule property and that the alleged encroachment took place subsequently, during the subsistence of an interim injunction order passed by the Court. The plaintiff has - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10633 WP No. 3428 of 2026 specifically alleged that such encroachment was illegal and in violation of the Court’s order. Therefore, the statement relied upon by the defendant, when read in its entirety, supports the plaintiff’s case of subsequent encroachment rather than constituting an admission against his interest. 13. Further, the extent, nature, and timing of the alleged encroachment are seriously disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated without recording evidence. The determination of whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property on the date of the suit, whether the defendant encroached upon the same during the pendency of the suit, and whether such encroachment, if any, disentitles the plaintiff to the relief of permanent injunction, are all matters that require a full- fledged trial. These issues cannot be conclusively decided on the basis of a single statement made in the affidavit of evidence of P.W.1. 14. This Court is also mindful of the fact that a suit for permanent injunction is maintainable even in cases where the plaintiff alleges dispossession or encroachment during the pendency of the suit, subject to proof of possession on the date of the suit and unlawful interference by the defendant. The alleged admission relied upon by the defendant does not conclusively establish that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit schedule property at the relevant point of time. Therefore, the defendant cannot seek dismissal of the suit by invoking the extraordinary and discretionary power under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10633 WP No. 3428 of 2026 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the alleged admission relied upon by the defendant is neither clear nor unequivocal so as to warrant passing a judgment on admission. The application filed by the defendant under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC is therefore devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, with the above observations and findings, this Court answers Point No. 1 in the Negative. 16. POINT No.2:- In the light of discussions made at above and answer to the above point, it is just and necessary to pass the following: “ O R D E R “ I.A. No. VI, filed under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the defendant, is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-. For cross examination of P.W.1 as last chance by 06-02-2026.” 4. Under these circumstances, upon reconsideration, re- evaluation and re-appreciation of the entire material on record, I do not find any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in the present petition in exercise of my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath - (2015) 5 SCC - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10633 WP No. 3428 of 2026 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohamed Ali Vs. V. Jaya & others – (2022) 10 SCC 477. 5. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. (ii) However, the imposition of cost of Rs.10,000/- payable by the petitioner – defendant is hereby waived and costs are made easy. (iii) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit without being influenced by the findings and observations, if any, recorded in the impugned order. (iv) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept / left open and no opinion is expressed on merits/demerits of the rival contentions. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 16