- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28560 WP No. 24159 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 24159 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: J. PRASHANTH HEGDE S/O DAYANANDA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O 'AMARDEEP' NEW MISSION COMPOUND ROAD, BESIDES JEWEL ROCK HOTEL, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.N. HARISH, ADVOCATE) AND: DR. H. NANJAPPA S/O H.N. ONKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O VEERABHADRESHWARA NILAYA, 2ND CROSS, ACHUTHA RAO LAYOUT, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ARVIND C. DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. C.M. DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.01.2020 IN MA NO.24/2019 PASSED BY THE COURT Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28560 WP No. 24159 of 2021 OF LEARNED II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 30.01.2020 in M.A.No.24/2019 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Shivamogga (for short, 'the trial Court'). 2. Heard Sri. B.N. Harish, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Arvind C. Desai, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.135/2019 before the Civil Judge, Shivamogga seeking declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the Schedule-B property, being a part and parcel of the Schedule-A property with further prayer of permanent injunction as well as mandatory injunction against the petitioner herein. In the said suit, the petitioner/defendant - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28560 WP No. 24159 of 2021 filed a detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. The plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking temporary injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from putting up any construction within the suit schedule property. The said application was rejected by the trial Court on 26.03.2019. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff/respondent preferred an appeal and the Appellate Court in M.A.No.24/2019 allowed the application of the plaintiff filed seeking temporary injunction. 4. The primary contention of the plaintiff is that he has purchased Schedule-A property which includes Schedule-B property in the year 2003 and defendant is his neighbor having a site No.91, and the defendant encroached the plaintiff’s site to the extent of 3 feet which is shown as a B-schedule property and put up the construction. It is not in dispute between the parties that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28560 WP No. 24159 of 2021 when the application and suit was filed, by that time second floor of the property was already in existence. 5. It is to be noticed that the application seeking restraint against the defendant not to put up construction, would not survive for consideration in view of the fact that the structure actually exists. Be that it may, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that the relief sought by the respondent in the suit is a comprehensive relief of declaration, permanent injunction as well as mandatory injunction and the said suit is required to be adjudicated by the trial Court on merits. 6. Hence, it would be appropriate to direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit on merits without there being any influence by the finding recorded by it while rejecting the application for temporary injunction or the finding recorded by the first Appellate Court in M.A.No.24/2019. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28560 WP No. 24159 of 2021 7. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the trial Court to dispose of the suit in accordance with law. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE MCR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17