- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26606 WP No. 15169 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 15169 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MANASA D/O GOPAL @ GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT PUTTAPPA GUDI BEEDI, WARD NO.20, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE -562 110 …PETITIONER (BY SMT.SONU S., ADVOCATE FOR SMT.VANDANA P.L., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THOLASAMMA W/O LATE. RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 2. GOPAL @ GOPAL, S/O LATE. RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 3. MANJULA, W/O GOPAL @ GOPALA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 4. YASHVANTH. G, S/O GOPAL @ GOPALA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26606 WP No. 15169 of 2026 5. D.R. RAMESH, S/O LATE. RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 6. A. SHANTHA, W/O D.R.RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 7. HARSHITHA. R, D/O D.R.RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS 8. KEERTHANA. R, D/O D.R.RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS 9. AKSHAY. R, S/O D.R.RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, 10. ASHIKA, W/O D.R. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 11. PURVITH.R. S/O D.R.RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS 12. LOVISH.R. S/O D.R.RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.9, 11 & 12 ARE THE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN AND HIS FATHER D.R.RAMESH, 13. VIJAYAMMA, D/O LATE. RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26606 WP No. 15169 of 2026 R/AT B2 BLOCK, VEMAGAL, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT KOLAR-563 101 14. LAKSHMI, D/O LATE. RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 12, 14 ARE R/AT PUTTAPPA GUDI BEEDI, WARD NO.20, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 110 15. RATHNAMMA D/O LATE. RAMAPPA, W/O RAVI.N. AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.69, MASIDI ROAD, MANOVARTHI GARDEN, NEAR PUMP HOUSE, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560 074 16. R.MANJULA, D/O LATE. RAMAPPA, W/O MUNIKRISHNAPPA.K. AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT UPPARAHALLI VILLAGE, KUMBALAHALLI POST, HOSAKOTE TALUK-572 136 17. M/S IVC HOLDINGS, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY M.V.RAVINDRANATHA REDDY, S/O VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.37,MUDDALAHALLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHICKABALLAPUR DISTRICT CHICKABALLAPUR-563 125 …RESPONDENTS - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26606 WP No. 15169 of 2026 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.04.2026 PASSED ON I.A. NO.1 IN O.S. NO.439/2026 BY THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court questioning the order passed on I.A.No.1 O.S No.439/2026 dated 10.04.2026 passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, whereby the trial Court without granting injunction has issued summons to the defendants along with emergent notice on I.A.No.I to defendant No.17 returnable by 08.07.2026. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that IA No.I is filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking an order of injunction against defendant No.17 restraining him from alienating suit schedule property till disposal of the suit. The Court ought to have passed an order on that and the trial Court cannot issue summons to the respondents/defendants. She has relied on order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26606 WP No. 15169 of 2026 Court in Dhalitha Vividha Gramodyoga Kaigarika Sahakara Sanga Niyamitha (R) Vs Samatha Sainika Dal SSD, arising out of W.P.No.35488/2025(GM-CPC) dated 09.12.2025, whereby Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed as follows: "6. This Court does not find any need or necessity to issue notice to the respondent- defendant for the reason that the petitioner is questioning the non-passing of the order on the application in IA.No.1, wherein the trial Court has neither passed any order for grant of an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction or for rejection of the same. 7. When an application is filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC by the plaintiff along with the plaint seeking an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction, it becomes the duty and obligation of the trial Court to consider the same and pass suitable orders either granting or rejecting the ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction. This Court in the case of Karnataka State Cricket Association vs. Mr.Shashidhara A.V. in WP.No.33725/2025 [Decided on 17.11.2025] has made certain observations and guidelines as to how the trial Court has to deal with an application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. It is not optional for the trial Court to merely issue notice to the defendant before - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26606 WP No. 15169 of 2026 passing an interim order of temporary injunction against the defendant. 8. The trial Court will also have to consider judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Shiv Kumar Chadha vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others reported in (1993)3 SCC 161, Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1674 and the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vedant Fashions Pvt. Ltd., vs. Smt.Rajul Devi reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Kar 7191 while deciding the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. 9. It is brought to the notice of this Court that notice is yet to be served on the defendant. Therefore, it would be appropriate for this Court to direct the trial Court to decide the application either granting or rejecting an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction by providing proper reasons." 3. Relying on the same, it is submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the trial Court to consider I.A.No.1. 4. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and in the light of the order passed in W.P.No.35488/2025(GM-CPC) referred supra, this matter is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26606 WP No. 15169 of 2026 remanded back to trial Court directing the trial Court to consider I.A.No.I filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. i. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. ii. All I.As. in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE PKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11