- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7529 MFA No. 236 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 236 OF 2026 (CPC) BETWEEN: M/S. VISWA PROMOTERS HAVING OFFICE AT, NO.503, 90/D, PRASHANTH HOSPITAL, 6TH FLOOR, VIVEKANANDA CIRCLE, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BOMMANAHALLI, BEGUR, BENGALURU-560068. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. VISHWANATH REDDY/CHANNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS SON OF CHANNA REDDY, RESIDING AT, NO.470, PRASHANTH NILAYA, 18TH CROSS, 24TH MAIN ROAD, HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR BENGALURU - 560102. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.R.RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. N S SRIRAJ GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. H.PURUSHOTHAM REDDY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, SON OF LATE HANUMAPPA REDDY, RESIDING AT, 7TH CROSS, NEAR GANESH TEMPLE, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560068. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7529 MFA No. 236 of 2026 2. SMT. NAGAVENI P AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, WIFE OF ASHOK HV, RESIDING AT, NO.236, 6TH MAIN, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE, HONGASANDRA, BENGALURU-560068. 3. SMT. MAMATHA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, WIFE OF ARUN KUMAR S, RESIDING AT, NO.151, 7TH CROSS, SINGASANDRA SHAMS SCHOOL ROAD, BENGALURU-560068. 4. SMT. ASHWINI P AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, WIFE OF ANIL KUMAR, RESIDING AT NO.90/90, NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, DODDANEKKUNDI, BENGALURU-560037. 5. SMT. SARITHA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, WIFE OF VINAY REDDY, RESIDING AT, 814, 17TH F 1ST CROSS, NEAR KORAMANGALA CLUB, 6TH BLOCK, BENGALURU-560095. 6. MR.VENKATESH ALIAS VENKATESH REDDY AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, SON OF LATE HANUMAPPA, RESIDING AT, SINGASANDRA POST, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU-560068. 7. SMT. ASHWATHAMMA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, WIFE OF VENKATESH REDDY, RESIDING AT, SINGASANDRA POST, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU-560068. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7529 MFA No. 236 of 2026 8. MR. MANJUNATH V AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, SON OF VENKATESH ALIAS VENKATESH REDDY, RESIDING AT, SINGASANDRA POST, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU-560068. 9. SMT. NEELAMMA AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, WIFE OF MUNINANJAPPA RESIDING AT, NO.231, BELLANDUR VILLAGE AND POST, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU-560100. 10. MR.RAVI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, SON OF ANUSUYAMMA RESIDING AT, CHANNAKESHAVA NAGAR, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU-560100. 11. MR.ANANDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, SON OF LATE GOWRAMMA RESIDING AT, CHIKKABEGUR GATE, MADIWALA POST, BENGALURU-560068. 12. SMT. AMITHA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE GOWRAMMA RESIDING AT, CHIKKABEGUR GATE, MADIWALA POST, BENGALURU-560068. 13. SMT. RATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, WIFE OF MUNI REDDY RESIDING AT, BELLANDUR VILLAGE AND POST, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU-560037. 14. SMT.GUNAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, WIFE OF LATE NAGARAJA REDDY - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7529 MFA No. 236 of 2026 RESIDING AT, CHANNAKESHAVA NAGAR, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU-560100. 15. MR. BK PADMANABHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, SON OF LATE BM KRISHNA REDDY RESIDING AT, NO.74/1, MARATHALLI, OUTER RING ROAD, APOLLO CLINIC BUILDING, BELLANDUR, BENGALURU-560103. 16. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI PADMANABHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, WIFE OF BK PADMANABHA REDDY RESIDING AT, NO.74/1, MARATHALLI, OUTER RING ROAD, APOLLO CLINIC BUILDING, BELLANDUR, BENGALURU - 560103. 17. SMT. SHWETHA PADMANABHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, WIFE OF AMARENDRA REDDY CHINTAM REDDY RESIDING AT, NO.212, MAYFAIR VILLAS, TELLAPUR OSMAN NAGAR ROAD, SANGAREDDY, TELANGANA-502032. 18. M/S. GENURISE BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S MJR BUILDERS PVT. LTD., COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956) HAVING OFFICE AT, NO.444, GRAND, 3RD FLOOR, 16TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR-6, BENGALURU-560102. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR.UDAYA KUMARA 19. MR. ANAND HASSANAND CHANDWANI AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, SON OF LATE MR.HASSANAND SUGNOMAL CHANDWANI, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7529 MFA No. 236 of 2026 RESIDING AT, VILLA NO.248, (B) AL WASL ROAD, JUMEIRAH 1, DUBAI-60998. 20. MISS. NEETA ANAND AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, D/O OF LATE MR. HASSANAND SUGNOMAL CHANDWANI RESIDING AT, VILLA NO.248, (B) AL WASL ROAD, JUMEIRAH 1, DUBAI-60998. 21. SMT.PAVITHRA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, WIFE OF NAGARAJU M RESIDING AT, NO.435, NAGARAJU MUNIREDDY BUILDING, 4TH CROSS, BELLANDUR, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU-560103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIGHNESHWARA S. SHASTRY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI.R.S.SUBRAHMANYA KAUSHIK, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R5; VIDE ORDER DATED 13.01.2026, NOTICE TO R6 TO R21 ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED AS UNDER: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7529 MFA No. 236 of 2026 ORAL JUDGMENT Sri.M.R.Rajagopal, Senior counsel on behalf of Sri.N.S.Sriraj Gowda, for the appellant and Sri. Vigneshwara S.Shastry, Senior counsel on behalf of Sri.R.S.Subrahmanya Kaushik, for caveator/ respondents 1 to 5, appeared in person. 2. The appeal is filed by defendant No.14 to set aside the order dated the sixth of November 2025, passed by the Court of XXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.6523/2025. 3. For convenience's sake, the parties shall be referred to as per their status and ranking before the Trial Court. 4. The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking certain reliefs. They also filed an interlocutory application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, restraining defendant No.14 from alienating or otherwise encumbering the suit schedule property in favor of third parties till the disposal of the suit. Defendant No.14 contested the application. The Trial Court vide order dated the sixth of November 2025, passed the status quo order. Under these circumstances, defendant No.14 has filed - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7529 MFA No. 236 of 2026 this appeal on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of appeal. 5. Counsel for the respective parties presented several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. 6. The following point arises for consideration. Was the Trial Court legally justified in passing a status quo order in response to an application for a temporary injunction? 7. The facts are already clear. No further detail is required. The dispute relates to the interim injunction order passed by the Trial Court in response to the application filed by the plaintiffs. The true copy of the temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiffs is furnished along with the appeal, and the same has been perused with care. The plaintiffs sought a restraint order against defendant No.14 from alienating or otherwise encumbering the suit schedule property in favour of third parties. While the plaintiffs sought a restraint order against Defendant No.14 from alienating or encumbering - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7529 MFA No. 236 of 2026 the suit schedule property, the Trial Court passed an order directing the parties to maintain the status quo. Prima facie, it appears that as of the date of passing of the impugned order, nothing was shown by either party as to the present status of the property to maintain the status quo. The Trial Court passes a status quo order without verifying the current status. The law is well settled that a "Status Quo" Order without defining the current state of affairs is vague, unworkable, and creates doubt and ambiguity. The Trial Court adopted a 'short-cut method' of passing an order of status quo without determining the factual matrix of the case, which amounts to a failure to exercise jurisdiction. The status quo order passed by the Trial Court on an injunction application is considered legally fragile and is unsustainable in law. Therefore, the status quo order passed by the Trial Court is legally tenuous and unsustainable. Consequently, the matter warrants a remand for fresh consideration. In light of the legal infirmities, the Trial Court’s status quo order cannot stand. A remand is necessary to decide the injunction application afresh in accordance with the law. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7529 MFA No. 236 of 2026 8. For the foregoing reasons, the order dated:06.11.2025 passed by XXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.6523/2025 is set aside. 9. Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs and defendant No.14 jointly submitted that they would appear before the Trial Court to address arguments on the injunction application on the 18th day of February 2026. Taking note of the said submission, counsel for the plaintiffs and counsel for the defendant No.14 are permitted to address their arguments on the 18th day of February 2026. All the contentions of the plaintiffs and of defendant No.14 are left open. The Trial Court is to pass a suitable order on the application afresh in accordance with the law. 10. As a result, the appeal is allowed. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 71