- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21969 WP No. 15243 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 15243 OF 2023 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. S. MURALIDHARA S/O SRI. V. SREENIVASALU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.201, 2ND FLOOR, EVERJOY RESIDENCY, NO.12, 5TH MAIN, VALLABHANAGAR, SUBRAMANYAPURA POST, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 061. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.B. NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. JOINT REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, ARBITRATION AND KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, HUBLI-580 020. 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER THE BHATKAL URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT, BHATKAL-581 320. 3. M/S E.J. FOOD PARK PRIVATE LIMITED REGISTERED OFFICE AT OPPOSITE TO KAMATH RESIDENCY, Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21969 WP No. 15243 of 2023 MALAVALLI-2, BHATKALA TALUK, MURUDESHWARA-581 350. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, SRI. NIRANJAN C JAIN. 4. SRI. NIRANJAN C JAIN S/O SRI. CHANDRARAJ, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.5/2L, SHRUTHI TOWERS, OPPOSITE TO ORCHID INTERNATIONAL AND SAHANA CONVENTIONAL HALL, KUNDAPURA MAIN ROAD, KUNDAPURA-576 201. ALSO AT, SRI. NIRANJAN C JAIN, S/O SRI. CHANDRARAJ, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.179/1, 4TH FLOOR, 9TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN ROAD, RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 040. 5. SRI. K.T. SHIVANANDA S/O SRI. T.S. THIMAPPA, DIRECTOR OF M/S E.J. FOOD PARK PRIVATE LIMITED, RESIDING AT KALLARE ENTERPRISES, NO.9/2, KALLARE INDUSTRIAL AREA, KOCHOHALLI, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 091. ALSO AT:- SRI. K.T. SHIVANANDA S/O SRI. T.S. THIMAPPA, DIRECTOR OF M/S E.J. FOOD PARK PRIVATE LIMITED, RESIDING AT NO.7, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS, NEAR VENKATESHWARA LAYOUT, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21969 WP No. 15243 of 2023 SYNDICATE BANK LAYOUT, HEROHALLI, BENGALURU–560 091. ALSO AT:- DIRECTOR OF M/S. E.J. FOOD PARK PVT. LTD. KAMATH RESIDENCY OPPOSITE MAVALLI-2, MURDESHWARA-581 350, BHATKALA TALUK. 6. SMT. M. SOWMYA W/O SRI. VEERENDRA PRABHU, DIRECTOR OF M/S E.J. FOOD PARK PRIVATE LIMITED, RESIDING AT NO.343-1, 1ST FLOOR, 7TH CROSS, PADMANABHANAGAR, BENGALURU–560 070. 7. SRI. NAGARAJA KRISHNA RESIDING AT GOLIKUMBRI, KOPPA, BHATKALA–581 320. 8. SRI. RATNARAJ SHRIDHAR SHETTY RESIDING AT GOLIKUMBRI, KOPPA, BHATKALA-581 320. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R5, R7, R8 – SERVED; V/O.DTD.03/07/2024, NOTICE TO R3 & R4 HELD SUFFICIENT; V/O.DTD.04/09/2025, PETITION AGAINST R6 DISMISSED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER OR DIRECTION OR NECESSARY WITH BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30/11/2020 IN CASE NO.JRD/UBF/HUBLI/131/2020-21 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AS PER ANNEXURE-A. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21969 WP No. 15243 of 2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER Heard Learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is assailing the Order dated 30.11.2020 in Case No.JRD/UBF/Hubballi/131 of 2021 passed by Respondent No.1 at Annexure-A, in this writ petition. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner is an intending purchaser of the schedule properties and accordingly, has entered into a registered Sale Agreement dated 13.08.2018, annexed to the writ petition (Annexure-B) and accordingly, sought for interference by this Court. 4. The said submission was opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents stating that, the petitioner is not the owner of the property in question and accordingly, he has no locus to challenge the impugned order passed by Respondent No.1. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21969 WP No. 15243 of 2023 5. I have taken note of submission made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The petitioner claims right over the property based on the registered Sale Agreement, however, as on today, the said Agreement has not been enforced nor no Sale Deed has been made in favour of the petitioner and therefore, I am of the view that, the petitioner has no locus to challenge the impugned order passed by Respondent No.1 at Annexure-A. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE rs List No.: 2 Sl No.: 56