- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27282 WP No. 15472 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 15472 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: M/S BENGALURU CAFE HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.06, 9TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGAR, 2ND BLOCK, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -560 011 A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR. VARUN TIMMEGOWDA …PETITIONER (BY SRI. C.P. SOMANNA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. UDAYSIMHA S/O UNKNOWN AGED ABOUT MAJOR 2. MRS. SUMA W/O. UDAYSIMHA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO. 3/3, DURGA SADAN, SOUTH CROSS ROAD, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560 064 …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27282 WP No. 15472 of 2026 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.04.2026 PASSED BY THE PRL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DIRECTING ISSUANCE OF EMERGENT NOTICE (ANNEXURE A). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.Nos.2 to 4 in O.S.No.2985/2026 dated 28.04.2026 by the XXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the trial Court had issued suit summons to the defendants. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the petitioner has sought for injunction against the defendants. But the trial Court had issued notice without granting temporary injunction and had observed that the defendants have already approached the BBMP authority regarding the inconvenience and hardship caused to them. Learned counsel submits that when an application is filed seeking ad interim injunction, the trial Court has to pass an order whether the plaintiff is entitled for such a relief or not. If the petitioner is - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27282 WP No. 15472 of 2026 not entitled for the ad interim injunction, the trial Court can dismiss the I.A. and issue suit summons to the defendants. But in this case, without considering the same, the trial Court had issued the suit summons. Hence, the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, where the trial Court had failed to pass any order. 3. Learned counsel has relied on order passed by Co- ordinate Bench of this 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27282 WP No. 15472 of 2026 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 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." 4. Relying on the same, it is submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the trial Court to consider I.A.Nos.2 to 4. 5. 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 remanded back to trial Court directing the trial Court to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27282 WP No. 15472 of 2026 consider I.A.Nos.2 to 4 filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. ORDER i. The order passed in I.A.Nos.2 to 4 in O.S.No.2985/2026 dated 28.04.2026 by the XXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court. ii. The trial Court shall consider I.A.Nos.2 to 4 on the merits of it within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. iii. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to advance the case. iv. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. v. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 2 Sl No.: 22