- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27180 W.P. No.4848/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.4848/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SIDDAPPA ARANI S/O LATE ARANI SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS. 2. GIRISHA A.S. S/O LATE ARANI SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. 3. HARISHA A.S. S/O LATE ARANI SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 4. SANTOSHA A.S. LATE ARANI SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 4 ARE AGRICULTURIST, RESIDENT OF SARVARA KERI, HONNALI TOWN AND TALUK DAVANAGER DISTRICT 577217. 5. C. CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE MAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS. 6. C. VAGEESHA S/O C. CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 7. C. BHARMAPPA S/O CHANDRAPPA Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27180 W.P. No.4848/2022 AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. PETITIONER NOS.5 TO 7 ARE AGRICULTURIST, RESIDENT OF HOSAKERI, HONNALI TOWN AND TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 577217. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANDESH T.B. ADV.,) AND: B.R. SHIVAMURTHY S/O BELAGUTTI RAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, R/AT DURGIGUDI EXTENSION MAIN ROAD, HONNALI TOWN, DAVANAGER DISTRICT 577217. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. YASHWANTH M.M. ADV., FOR SRI. SANDESH P. NADIGER, ADV., C/RESPONDENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.01.2022 PASSED IN M.A.NO.09/2021 BY THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARIHAR, SITTING AT HONNALI IN VIDE ANNEXURE-O & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27180 W.P. No.4848/2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 27.01.2022 passed in M.A.No.09/2021 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Harihar, sitting at Honnali (for short, ‘the Appellate Court’). 2. Heard Sri.Sandesh T.B., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Yashwanth M.M., learned counsel for Sri.Sandesh P.Nadiger, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The respondent herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.112/2020 on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Honnali, (for short, ‘the trial Court’) for the relief of permanent injunction against the petitioners herein with regard to the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the respondent-plaintiff has filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking temporary injunction against the petitioners-defendants - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27180 W.P. No.4848/2022 from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit. The defendants in the aforesaid suit filed a counter claim seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the respondent herein and along with the counter claim, the defendants filed I.A.Nos.3 and 4 under Section 151 of CPC. The trial Court vide order dated 15.06.2021 rejected all the three applications i.e., I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiff and I.A.Nos.3 and 4 filed by the defendants, on the ground that plaintiff as well as the defendants claim lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and the aspect of possession is seriously disputed by each of the parties and the same is required to be ascertained during the course of trial. 4. It is to be noticed that the respondent-plaintiff has assailed the order of the trial Court dated 15.06.2021 before the Appellate Court in M.A.No.9/2021. The Appellate Court vide order dated 27.01.2022 allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff and restraint order - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27180 W.P. No.4848/2022 is passed against the petitioners-defendants during the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.112/2020. The order of the Appellate Court is challenged by the petitioners- defendants in this petition. 5. It is to be noticed that this Court video order dated 11.03.2022 by considering the submission on both sides ordered the parties to maintain status quo and the said interim order passed is in force till this day. It is to be noticed that the suit as well as the counter claim is required to be adjudicated by the trial Court on its merits. It is also to be noticed that recording of any finding with regard to the possession may cause prejudice to either of the parties. Considering the nature of dispute pending between the parties before the trial court, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met if the parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the possession over the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27180 W.P. No.4848/2022 ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed-in-part. ii. The plaintiff as well as defendants shall maintain status quo with regard to the possession of the suit properties till the disposal of the suit in O.S.No.112/2020 by the trial Court. The trial court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit as early as possible. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34