- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26550 W.P. No.23340/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.23340/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. BISANNA S/O N.S. BYRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.179, LIG, I MAIN ROAD 5TH CROSS, KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN BANGALORE 560060 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVIKUMARA B.R. ADV.,) AND: SMT. A.R. REKHA W/O B.K. SURESH BABU D/O A. RADHAKRISHNA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.164, II MAIN TONACHIKOPPALU LAYOUT MYSORE 576009. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. LAKSHMI, ADV., FOR SRI. K. MANJUNATHA RAO BHONSLE, ADV., FOR C/R) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.07.2022 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE XI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY (CCH-8) ON I.A. NO.15 DATED 21.10.2021 Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26550 W.P. No.23340/2022 FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC BY THE PETITIONER IN OS NO.3115/2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW THE IA FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC BY THE PETITIONER & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 28.07.2022 passed in O.S.No.3115/2010 by the XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (for short, ‘the trial Court’). 2. Heard Sri.Ravikumara B.R., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Lakshmi, learned counsel for Sri.K.Manjunatha Rao Bhonsle, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material available on record. 3. The respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No.3115/2010 against the petitioner for grant of permanent injunction. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26550 W.P. No.23340/2022 1908, to treat Issue No.3 as a preliminary issue and try the same. The Issue No.3 reads as under: “Whether the Defendant proves that Suit for bearing Injunction is not maintainable without seeking relief of Declaration of Title in view of Section 34 and 38 of Specific Relief Act.” 4. The trial Court rejected the said application under the impugned order. It is to be noticed that the petitioner has raised the defence in the suit that suit for bare injunction is not maintainable when there is a cloud over the title of the respondent and seeks to consider Issue No.3 as a preliminary issue. Further it is to be noticed that the petitioner can raise a defence with regard to the title, ultimately such a defence is required to be proved by adducing proper evidence and despite raising such defence by the petitioner, if the respondent- plaintiff continues with the suit for injunction without seeking declaration, no Court can compel the respondent-plaintiff to seek the relief of declaration. 5. It is also to be noticed that the said application is filed after conclusion of the evidence of the respondent-plaintiff and there is direction of this Court in W.P.No.14544/2017 to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26550 W.P. No.23340/2022 dispose of the suit expeditiously. Considering the said aspect, the trial Court judiciously applied its mind and rejected the application refusing to treat Issue No.3 as a preliminary issue. In my considered view, there is no error in the order of the trial Court calling for interference in this petition. Hence, the petition is devoid of merits, accordingly, the same is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15