- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13644 WP No. 2950 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 2950 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI SATISH R S/O SHRI BASAVARAJU @ RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/A NO.40/A, 8TH A CROSS NEAR MUNESHWARA TEMPLE BALAJINAGAR, TIGALARATYPALYA PEENYA SMALL INDUSTRIES BENGALURU - 560 058. 2. SHRI VINOD KUMAR B S/O SHRI BASAVARAJU @ RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/A NO.40/A, 8TH A CROSS NEAR MUNESHWARA TEMPLE BALAJINAGAR, TIGALARATYPALYA PEENYA SMALL INDUSTRIES BENGALURU - 560 058. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI ARAVIND M NEGLUR, ADV.) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY HOME SECRETARY VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. INSPECTOR OF POLICE BYDARAHALLI POLICE STATION BYDARHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 091. Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13644 WP No. 2950 of 2026 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE NORTH WEST DIVISION, YESHWANTPURA BENGALURU - 560 022. 4. SHRI CHINNAGIRIYAPPA S/O THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS NO.63, NELLAKADARANAHALLI NAGASANDRA POST BENGALURU - 560 073. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI SHARATH S GOWDA, ADV., FOR R-4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE ORDERS AT ANNEXURE F AND G AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS ALONE, AND IN RESPECT OF THE SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY, AND NOT AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AND IN RESPECT OF THE PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: "A. Direct the Respondents to implement the Orders at Annexure-F which is order dated 23/09/2023 passed by thePrl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in O.S No. 1407/2022 and Annexure-G which is order dated 07/03/2024 passed by the Prl. Senior Civil - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13644 WP No. 2950 of 2026 Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in O.S No. 1407/2022 against the Defendants alone, and in respect of the Suit Schedule Property, and not against the Petitioners and in respect of the Petition Schedule Property; B. Pass any such order that this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the fact and circumstances of the case, in the furtherance of interests of justice." 2. The petitioners are before this Court feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the jurisdictional Civil Court in O.S. No.1407/2022, whereby the Civil Court, while considering I.A. No.II filed by respondent No.4 under the provisions of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has granted an order of temporary injunction. By the said order, the Civil Court has restrained the defendants from putting up any manner of construction over any portion of the Schedule ‘A’ property. Further, while granting the said interim relief, the Civil Court has also directed the jurisdictional Police Inspector to extend necessary - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13644 WP No. 2950 of 2026 assistance in implementing the injunction order passed on I.A. No.II. 3. The petitioners contend that the property owned and possessed by them is a vacant site bearing Property No.38, previously assigned Khata No.138, which, according to them, is entirely distinct and different from the property which forms the subject matter of the suit in O.S. No.1407/2022. It is their specific case that the suit schedule property in the said suit is Site No.38 bearing Khata No.87, and therefore the two properties are separate and independent. However, according to the petitioners, respondent No.4, by taking advantage of the interim order of injunction granted by the Civil Court and the subsequent order directing police assistance, is attempting to interfere with the construction activities being undertaken by the petitioners on their property. The petitioners therefore assert that the order of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13644 WP No. 2950 of 2026 injunction passed in the pending suit cannot be extended or enforced against their property which, according to them, does not form part of the suit schedule property. 4. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and has carefully examined the pleadings placed on record as well as the documents produced along with the petition. Upon a meticulous examination of the material available on record, this Court proceeds to consider the grievance projected by the petitioners in the present proceedings. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have purchased the property in question during the pendency of the suit proceedings. The records prima facie indicate that the petitioners are pendente lite purchasers. The documents produced along with the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13644 WP No. 2950 of 2026 petition reveal that the petitioners have purchased Site No.38 bearing Khata No.138 under a registered sale deed dated 12.07.2024. The material on record further discloses that the petitioners’ vendor, namely Nandish, had earlier purchased the said property from defendants Nos.1 to 4 in O.S. No.1407/2022. 6. In the meanwhile, the Trial Court, while considering I.A. No.II filed in the said suit under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, has granted an order of temporary injunction restraining defendants Nos.1 to 4 from interfering with the alleged lawful possession of respondent No.4 over the suit schedule property described as Site No.38 bearing Khata No.138. 7. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the property purchased by the petitioners is entirely distinct and separate from the suit schedule property - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13644 WP No. 2950 of 2026 and therefore the interim injunction granted in I.A. No.II as well as the direction issued for police protection cannot be enforced against the petitioners’ property, this Court is not persuaded to accept the said contention at this stage. The petitioners’ submission that the injunction order produced as Annexure-F and the consequential police protection are required to be implemented only against the defendants in O.S. No.1407/2022, and not against the petitioners, cannot be accepted in the present proceedings, particularly having regard to the fact that the petitioners are tracing their title through the very defendants who are parties to the suit. 8. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims, this Court is of the prima facie view that the title documents relied upon by the petitioners themselves disclose that they are - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13644 WP No. 2950 of 2026 claiming title through defendants Nos.1 to 4 in O.S.No.1407/2022. In that view of the matter, the dispute relating to the identity of the property, the rights claimed by the parties, and the effect of the interim order of injunction are all matters which fall within the domain of the competent Civil Court where the suit is presently pending. Since the issue is already seized of by the Civil Court in O.S.No.1407/2022, it would be appropriate for the petitioners to approach the said Court and seek appropriate relief in accordance with law. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the order of injunction and the consequential grant of police protection, it is open to them to appear before the Trial Court, file appropriate applications, and seek suitable orders including modification, clarification, or impleadment in the pending proceedings. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13644 WP No. 2950 of 2026 9. Though the petitioners have asserted that they have substantially completed the construction on the property purchased by them and have produced certain photographs in support of their contention, the stage of construction and the petitioners’ entitlement or right over the constructed residential structure are matters which necessarily require adjudication on facts and evidence. Such disputed questions cannot be gone into or conclusively determined in the present proceedings under writ jurisdiction. 10. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and keeping all the contentions of the parties open to be urged before the competent Civil Court, the present petition stands dismissed. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB, List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9