- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28236 WP No. 16742 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 16742 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT MANJULA W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 2. SMT. SUMA D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 3. SRI. KAMALAMMA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS W/O LATE MUNICHOWDAPPA 4. SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA @ LAKSHMINARAYANA M. AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O LATE MUNICHOWDAPPA 5. SRI. KUMAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE MUNICHOWDAPPA ALL ARE RESIDING AT GANGAVARA VILLAGE CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 129 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BHASKAR GOWDA N.M., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28236 WP No. 16742 of 2026 AND: 1. MUNIYAPPA @ MUNIAPPANNA S/O LATE. CHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS 2. SMT. SHARADAMMA W/O MUNIYAPPA @ MUNIAPPANNA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 3. SMT. RAJANNA S/O MUNIYAPPA @ MUNIAPPANNA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 4. SMT. CHOWDAMMA D/O MUNIYAPPA @ MUNIAPPANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 5. SMT. LAKSHMANA S/O MUNIYAPPA @ MUNIAPPANNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT GANGAVARA VILLAGE CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 129 6. SRI. CHOWDAIAH S/O MUNIYAPPA @ MUNIAPPANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 7. CHANDRAPPA S/O MUNIYAPPA @ MUNIAPPANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28236 WP No. 16742 of 2026 RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT, GANGAVARA VILLAGE CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 129 8. MUNIRAJA V S/O LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO. 147, CHANNAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 135 9. SMT RATHNAMMA W/O LATE CHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 10. SRI CHOWDAIAH C S/O LATE CHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 11. SRI MUNIRAJ W/O LATE CHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.9 TO 11 ARE R/AT GANGAVARA VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 129 …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.05.2026 AS PER ANNEXURE-A IN O.S. NO. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28236 WP No. 16742 of 2026 218/2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED VII ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT (VACATION COURT). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in the suit are aggrieved by the proceedings dated 27.05.2026, whereby the Trial Court had issued suit summons to the defendants on IA No.1, filed by the petitioners seeking an ad interim order of temporary injunction. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that when an application is filed seeking an ad interim injunction, the Trial Court has to grant an order or the Court has to dismiss the same. But it cannot order summons to the respondents. 3. In this regard, reliance is placed on order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Dhalitha Vividha - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28236 WP No. 16742 of 2026 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 passing an interim order of temporary injunction against the defendant. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28236 WP No. 16742 of 2026 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. Considering the urgency as put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners 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 consider I.A.No.I filed by the petitioners in accordance with law. 5. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28236 WP No. 16742 of 2026 ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the order dated 27.05.2026 passed in I.A. No.1 in O.S.No.218/2026 on the file of the VII Additional District and Session Judge, Bengaluru Rural District. ii. The matter is remanded back to the Trial Court and directing the Trial Court shall consider I.A. No.1 filed by the petitioners on its merits, in accordance with law, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. iii. All I.As. in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2