- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7294 WP No. 22938 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 22938 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: AMRUTHA VARSHINI N. NANJANGOUDAR D/O NAGENDRA NANJANGOUDAR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/A NO. 2600, SIDDIVINAYAKA, 26TH MAIN ROAD, SECTOR I, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560102 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.R.RAJAGOPAL, ADV FOR SRI. ARUN ASHOK GADAG, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. NANJAREDDY S/O LATE ANKA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, 2. SRI. VISHWANATH REDDY, S/O LATE ANKA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, 3. SMT. LAKSHMI, W/O SRINIVAS, D/O LATE SADASHIVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, 4. SMT. CHAITRA REDDY, W/O VINAY, D/O LATE SADASHIVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, ALL ARE R/A MYLASANDRA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560049 Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7294 WP No. 22938 of 2025 5. SMT. GIRIJA NAGARAJ, W/O B.K. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/A NO.103/9, 6TH CROSS, VENKATESHWARA LAYOUT, SUDDAGUNTEPALYA, DRC POST, BANGALORE-560029 6. SMT. VEENA SRINIVAS, W/O B.K. SRINIVAS MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/A NO.103/9, 6TH CROSS, VENKATESHWARA LAYOUT, SUDDAGUNTEPALYA, DRC POST, BANGALORE - 560029 7. SRI. SUNIL KUMAR J., S/O LATE JAYARAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/A DOOR NO.61, NEW CENTRAL JAIL ROAD, RAYASANDRA, HUSKUR POST, BANGALORE - 560049 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 4; SRI. K. SHIVASHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.07.2025 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1097/2023 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE ON IA NO.3 AS PER ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7294 WP No. 22938 of 2025 ORAL ORDER This petition by the impleaded defendant No.4 in O.S.No.1097/2023 is directed against the impugned order dated 01.07.2025, whereby the trial Court allowed I.A.No.3 as against defendant Nos.1 to 3 as well as against the defendant No.4. 2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent Nos.1 to 4 / plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against three defendants viz., Smt.Girija Nagaraj, Smt.Veena Srinivas and Sri.Sunil Kumar J. for declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property along with the suit. 4. The plaintiffs having filed an application for temporary injunction in I.A.No.1, the trial court proceeded to pass an order dated 06.06.2024 in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendant Nos.1 to 3. Subsequently, the petitioner claims to have purchased the suit schedule property from defendant Nos.1 and 2 vide registered sale deed dated 05.10.2024. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7294 WP No. 22938 of 2025 5. Upon coming to know about the said sale deed in favour of the petitioner, the respondent Nos.1 to 4 / plaintiffs filed two applications viz., I.A.No.2 under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC seeking impleadment of the petitioner as defendant No.4 in the suit and I.A. No.3 for a direction to the police authorities to implement and enforce the order of temporary injunction passed on I.A.No.1. By the impugned order dated 01.07.2025, the trial Court not only allowed I.A.No.2 and impleaded the petitioner as defendant No.4 but also allowed I.A.No.3 for police protection filed by the plaintiffs. 6. In this context, it is the specific contention of the petitioner that though the order of temporary injunction was passed only as against defendant Nos.1 to 3, much prior to the petitioner being impleaded as an additional defendant No.4 in the suit, the respondent Nos.1 to 4 / plaintiffs are trying to enforce and implement the said order passed on I.A.No.3 with police help against the petitioner also, who is before this Court by way of the present petition. 7. A perusal of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the undisputed material on record will clearly indicate that apart from - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7294 WP No. 22938 of 2025 the fact that the order of temporary injunction passed on I.A.No.1 was on 06.06.2024 prior to the petitioner purchasing the suit schedule property on 05.10.2024, the said order of temporary injunction was restricted in its effect and operation only as against the defendant Nos.1 to 3 and not as against the petitioner or anybody else claiming through or under the defendant Nos.1 to 3. 8. Under these circumstances, the question of passing an order for police protection directing implementation of an order of temporary injunction not passed against the petitioner, who had purchased the suit schedule property subsequent to the order of injunction would not arise in the facts and circumstances of the instant case and the impugned order dated 01.07.2025 directing police protection to be granted against petitioner also deserves to be set aside. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 / plaintiffs submits that they would file an application for temporary injunction against the petitioner / defendant No.4 also on the next date of hearing of the suit which stands posted on - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7294 WP No. 22938 of 2025 20.02.2026 and the trial Court may consider and pass appropriate orders on the said application in accordance with law. 10. By way of reply, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner / defendant No.4 submits that in the event, the plaintiffs filed such an application for temporary injunction against the petitioner, the petitioner would file objections and contest the said application in accordance with law. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to modify the impugned order and issue necessary directions to the trial Court in this regard. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER i. The petition is hereby disposed of. ii. The impugned order dated 01.07.2025 passed on I.A.No.3 is hereby modified. iii. It is directed that the impugned order passed on I.A.No.3 is restricted / limited only as against the defendant Nos.1 to 3 and not as against the petitioner/defendant No. 4. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7294 WP No. 22938 of 2025 iv. Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to file an appropriate application for temporary injunction against the petitioner / defendant No.4 also. v. If the respondent Nos.1 to 4 files such an application, the trial Court shall provide an opportunity to file objections to the petitioner and dispose of the said application in accordance with law within a period of one month from 20.02.2026. vi. It is further directed that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, all parties shall maintain status quo in all respects as on today in relation to the suit schedule property including its nature and character and construction till disposal of the application to be filed by the plaintiffs. vii. All rival contentions in all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MH/- List No.: 2 Sl No.: 31