Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 1534 (KAR)

SMT. RATHNAMMA @ NAGARATHNAMMA v. VENKATESHAMURTHY CHARI,

WP/15993/2023 · 2026-03-26

H T Narendra Prasad

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17418 WP No. 15993 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.15993 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RATHNAMMA @ NAGARATHNAMMA D/O LATE BHOGACHARI, W/O B R NARASIMHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT SULIKERE VILLAGE AND PO KENGERIHOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU-560060. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHASHI KUMAR S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VENKATESHAMURTHY CHARI S/O LATE BHOGA CHARI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 2. SMT. REKHA W/O VENKATESHMURTHY CHARI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 3. SRI. SANJEEVACHARI V S/O VENKATESHAMURTHY CHARI AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS 4. KUM. USHA V D/O VENKATESHAMURTHY CHARI AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17418 WP No. 15993 of 2023 5. SMT. BHAGYAMMA D/O LATE BHOGACHARI W/O SANJEEVA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 6. SMT. S. GEETHA D/O SANJEEVA MURTHY AND BHAGYAMMA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 7. SRI. S. VISHWANATH S/O SANJEEVA MURTHY AND BHAGYAMMA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS 8. SMT. VARALAKSHMI S D/O SANJEEVA MURTHY AND BHAGYAMMA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, 9. KUM. S. ANUSHA D/O SANJEEVA MURTHY AND BHAGYAMMA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 9 ARE R/AT SULIKERE VILLAGE AND PO KEGRIHOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU-560060. 10. SRI. V.K. JAYARAM S/O VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 11. SMT. PARVATHAMMA @ PARVATHI W/O V K JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 12. SMT. KALPANA J D/O V K JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.10 TO 12 ARE R/AT NO.33, 14TH ‘A’ CROSS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17418 WP No. 15993 of 2023 PIPELINE ROAD, CHELURUPALYA VIJAYANAGAR, MAGADI ROAD BENGALURU-560 023. 13. SRI. SURESH R C S/O CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO.16, RAMASANDRA VILLAGE SULIKERE POST, KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 060. 14. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BENGALURU-560020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R14; SRI. K.S.UDAY, ADVOCATE FOR R10; SRI. SOMASHEKARA K.M., ADVOCATE FOR R13) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.05.2023 PASSED BY THE VACATION ORDER, (COURT OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE) BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT IN OS NO.60/2023 AT ANNEXURE-A ON IA NO.5/2023 FILED U/O XXXIX RULES 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC BY NOT GRANTING AN EXPARTE AD-INTERIM ORDER AS PRAYED FOR IN THE SAID IA AND ALLOW THE IA NO.5/2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNX-C BY RESTRAINING THE R10 TO 12 FROM WITHDRAWING ANY COMPENSATION FROM R14 IN LIEU OF ACQUISITION OF SUIT SCHEDULED PROPERTY, TILL DISPOSAL OF THE SAID APPLICATION BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17418 WP No. 15993 of 2023 ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff challenging the order dated 06.05.2023 passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District on application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S.No.60/2023, wherein the Trial Court has refused to grant an exparte order of temporary injunction. 2. The learned counsel for respondent No.10-defendant No.10 has submitted that on 20.02.2026, the Trial Court has passed the final order on application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. Therefore, the prayer sought in this writ petition does not survive for consideration. 3. In view of the above submission, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE DM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48