Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 21443 (KAR)

SRI AJAYA MARODIA v. M. VENKATACHALAPATHI

WP/16669/2026 · 2026-06-08

Lalitha Kanneganti

Original Suitbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27396 WP No. 16669 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. 16669 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. AJAYA MARODIA S/O LATE SHYAM SUNDAR MARODIA, AGED ABOUT 62 YAERS, R/O NO 5/4, BIJOY GARH, REGENT ESTATE, CIRCUS AVENUE, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL-700 092 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HALLI SHANTAPPA BASAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M. VENKATACHALAPATHI S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O NO-11, 2ND CROSS, SHANIMAHATHMA TEMPLE ROAD, DEVASANDRA, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU-NORTH, BENGALURU-560 036 2. GOVARDAN C., S/O CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O NO.171, COLONY ROAD, GUNDUR VILLAGE, VIRGONAGAR POST, BENGALURU EAST-TALUK, BENGALURU-560 049 …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27396 WP No. 16669 of 2026 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO PASS AN APPROPRIATE ORDER/DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT TO THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HOSAKOTE, IN OS /2026 (THE EMERGENT NOTICE ON IA NO-II ISSUED BY THE VACATION DISTRICT JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT IN V.O.S NO 210/2026) TO BE HERE ON IA NO-II FILED U/O ORDER 39 RULES LAND 2, R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, FOR GRANT OF EX-PARTE AD-INTERIM TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS RESTRAINING THEM ALIENATING THE SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY, VIDE ANNEXURE-J. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the orders passed on IA.No.I in O.S.No.210/2026 dated 27.05.2026 by the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru whereby the trial court without passing an order issued emergent notice on I.A.No.II to defendants, the petitioner/plaintiff is before this court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27396 WP No. 16669 of 2026 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits when an I.A. is filed seeking ad-interim temporary injunction the trial court has to pass an order on that either granting or rejecting the IA, but the trial court has issued emergent notice. Hence, there may be an injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit schedule property. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the entire material on record. When the petitioner has filed an application seeking ad-interim temporary injunction, the trial court ought to have considered the same. If the trial court finds no material, the trial court ought to have dismissed the same. Instead of passing any order on the IA, the trial Court has issued emergent notice. This court finds force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. A Co- ordinate Bench of this court 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, whereby Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed as follows: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27396 WP No. 16669 of 2026 "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. 8. The trial Court will also have to consider judgments of the Hon'ble Apex - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27396 WP No. 16669 of 2026 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 filed by the petitioners in accordance with law. In the light of the order, this court is passing the following: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27396 WP No. 16669 of 2026 ORDER i. The order passed in VOS.No.210/2026 dated 27.05.2026 by the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru is set aside. ii. The trial Court shall consider the application that is filed by the petitioner on IA No.1 in accordance with law within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. iii. The petitioner shall seek advancement of the case. iv. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. v. All pending I.As., in the petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20