- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29370 WP No. 24121 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 24121 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. B. KESHAVA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O SRI. B. BALA CHANDRA R/AT NO.6-53/4 VALLEY VIEW PINTO VALLEY ROAD BEHIND KIOCL QUARTERS KAVOOR, MANGALURU - 575 015 DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT. 2. SMT. SOWMYA ZAVIER AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS W/O SRI. ZAVIER SUNIL R/AT JILU VILLA NO.6-112-1 (3) NETHRAVATHI LAYOUT KANAKANADY MANGALURU - 575 002. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SUPREETH S.A, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIJAYA KRISHNA BHAT M, ADVOCATE) AND: MR. SAJID SAMRAN AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS S/O MR. HAJI M A SIDDIQUE Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29370 WP No. 24121 of 2022 R/AT SUPREME COTTAGE DOOR NO.17-23-1625/2 D'SILVA LANE, HIGHLAND KANAKANADY, MANGALURU - 575 002 DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SACHIN B.S, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 23.09.2022 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANGALURU, DK, IN M.A.NO.27/2021 AS PER ANNEXURE-G, CONSEQUENTLY CONFIRM THE ORDER DTD 09.03.2021 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN OS.NO.179/2021 BY THE 5TH ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANGALURU, VIDE 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 23.09.2022 passed in M.A.No.27/2021 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’ for short). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29370 WP No. 24121 of 2022 2. Heard Sri.Supreeth S.A. learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Vijaya Krishna Bhat M, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Sachin B.S, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The respondent has filed O.S.No.179/2021 against the petitioners herein seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants, agents etc., from in any way encroaching, trespassing or damaging the Schedule ‘A’ property. 4. In the said suit, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit against the petitioners/defendants, restraining them from in any way encroaching, trespassing or damaging the Schedule ‘A’ property. The said application was opposed by the petitioners. The Trial Court, vide order dated 09.03.2021, dismissed I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. It is also to be noticed that the Trial Court had initially granted an exparte order of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29370 WP No. 24121 of 2022 temporary injunction; however, the application for temporary injunction was later rejected after hearing both sides. The respondent/plaintiff assailed the order of the Trial Court before the appellate Court in M.A.No.27/2021, and the appellate Court, vide order dated 23.09.2022, allowed the appeal by allowing the application in I.A.No.1 filed for temporary injunction. It is to be noticed that this petition is pending from 2022, and the temporary injunction in the suit is operating against the petitioners/defendants. 5. The primary contention of the petitioners herein is that the Trial Court has considered the fact that the father of the plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.781/2020, and in the said suit, an application for temporary injunction was filed which came to be rejected. The Trial Court, considering the material on record, has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case and rejected the application. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29370 WP No. 24121 of 2022 6. It is to be noticed that the respondent/plaintiff is before the Trial Court with a specific assertion that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and that defendant No.1 is the owner of Schedule ‘B’ property, which he has given in lease to defendant No.2 and both the defendants are carrying out activities in Schedule ‘B’ property in order to put up construction for the erection of petrol bunk, and while doing so, the defendants are removing soil from the suit Schedule ‘A’ property and have also removed the barbed fencing which was existing between the Schedule ‘A’ and Schedule ‘B’ properties. 7. The parties to the proceedings are not disputing the fact that Schedule ‘A’ property is owned and is in the possession of the respondent/plaintiff, and Schedule ‘B’ property is owned and is in the possession of the defendants. When the parties to the proceedings are not disputing with regard to the suit schedule properties and their respective possession, in my considered view, the first appellate Court was fully justified in coming to the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29370 WP No. 24121 of 2022 conclusion that the plaintiff is able to prove before the Trial Court that he is the owner and in possession of Schedule ‘A’ property. The said finding of the appellate Court is based on the registered sale deed dated 28.03.2016 and the relevant records placed before it. The appellate Court has further recorded the finding that the pleadings, as well as the photographs placed on record, clearly indicate that the defendants have removed soil and fencing from Schedule ‘A’ property and has proceeded to grant temporary injunction. 8. In my considered view, the finding recorded by the appellate Court in granting temporary injunction insofar as Schedule ‘A’ property is concerned, is in consonance with the pleadings and material available on record and the plaintiff has been able to prove prima facie case for granting temporary injunction. It is to be noticed that if the defendants are allowed to remove the soil and put up construction by encroaching on the Schedule ‘A’ property, irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiff. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29370 WP No. 24121 of 2022 Considering the pleadings and material on record, I am of the view that the plaintiff has a balance of convenience lies in his favour. 9. Considering all these aspects, the appellate Court has rightly allowed I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. In my considered view, the same would not call for any interference. It is needless to observe that it is open for the defendants to carry out the activities in Schedule ‘B’ property. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20