- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27942 WP No. 10010 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 10010 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: HONG SAU BLISS PVT. LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: NO.4059, 19TH A MAIN, HAL 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU-560 008. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI. SUDARSHAN JASSANI PUROHITH. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.S. PONNAPPA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. LAKSHMANA, S/O. MUNISWAMY, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27942 WP No. 10010 of 2026 AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT MALLENAHALLI POST, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK. 2. SRI. DIVAKAR, S/O. LAKSHMANA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT MALLENAHALLI POST, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK. …RESPONDENTS (R1 AND 2 ARE SERVED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26.03.2026 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN O.S.NO.148 OF 2026 AT ANNEXURE - A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27942 WP No. 10010 of 2026 ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: "WHEREFORE it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to, by a judgment and decree: a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to QUASH the order dated 26.03.2026 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru in O.s.No.148 of 2026 at Annexure-A. b) ALLOW the Interlocutory Application No.1 in O.S.No.148 of 2026 pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Chikkamagaluru, and grant interim order as prayed for therein. c) PASS such other order or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems proper and fit in the interest of Justice and Equity." 2. The petitioner is before this Court questioning the emergent notice on I.A.No.1 and suit summons issued to defendants where the petitioner had sought for ad-interim injunction. When this matter came up for "preliminary hearing", the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 27.03.2026 had granted an order of statusquo and notice has been issued to the respondents and the same was served. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner had sought for an injunction, the Trial Court ought to have considered the IA that is filed without - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27942 WP No. 10010 of 2026 issuing notice and if the petitioner is not entitled to the same, the Trial Court ought to have dismissed the IA., but without passing any order the Trial Court cannot issue emergent notice. 4. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. When this Court had expressed the view that the matter will be remanded, it is submitted that till the IA is decided by the Trial Court there may be an order protecting the interest of the petitioner. In the case of 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, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had passed an order observing 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27942 WP No. 10010 of 2026 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 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27942 WP No. 10010 of 2026 application either granting or rejecting an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction by providing proper reasons." 5. In the light of the above order, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. The impugned order passed in O.S.No.148/2026 dated 26.03.2026 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru is set aside. ii. The Trial Court shall consider the IA.No.1 filed by the plaintiff as expeditiously as possible within one week from the date of receipt of copy of the order. iii. Till such time the order of statusquo that is granted by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court shall continue. iv. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. v. All I.As. in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6