- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30185 WP No. 18058 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 18058 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. GANGANNA S/O SHIVANNA, AGED 77 YEARS, 2. SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR B.S. S/O SHIVANNA, AGED 72 YEARS 3. SRI. B.S. PANCHAKSHARAIAH S/O SHIVANNA, AGED 67 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O BOMMARASANAHALLY, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK - 572 223 TUMAKURU DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.B. CHANDRA CHOODA, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. B.N. LOKESH, S/O NANJESHAIAH, AGED 55 YEARS, R/O BOMMARASANAHALLY, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK - 572 223 TUMAKURU DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30185 WP No. 18058 of 2026 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARRTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION PRAYING TO I) QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03/05/2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 FILED U/O 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.366/2024 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUBBI, VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND THE ORDER DATED 01/04/2026 PASSED IN M.A.NO.15/2025 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUBBI, VIDE ANNEXURE-F, BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed in M.A.No.15/2025 filed by Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gubbi dated 01.04.2026, whereby the Court has confirmed the order passed in I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.366/2024, on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Gubbi. 2. The petitioners before this Court are the plaintiffs in the suit. The suit is filed seeking relief of declaration of easement of necessity in respect of the ABCD passage in Survey No.30/1 along with the suit, the petitioners have filed - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30185 WP No. 18058 of 2026 I.A.No.1 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for grant of temporary injunction, which came to be dismissed by the trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court. 3. The trial Court, while dismissing the I.A. No.1, had observed that the petitioners have earlier filed O.S.No.427/2019 seeking injunction, and in that, the trial Court has granted an ad-interim temporary injunction in respect to the very same property and the same is in force as of today, and the Court in the light of the same has felt that, the petitioners are not entitled to another order of injunction in this suit. 4. When the matter is carried in appeal, the Appellate Court has confirmed the said findings, and the Court observed that though both the suits were filed seeking different reliefs, but in the present suit, the plaintiff is asking for the relief of a permanent injunction, and I.A. is also filed for the very same relief of a temporary injunction. Since they have already obtained the relief of temporary injunction, consideration of the very same application for the very same relief once again does not arise. It is also not their case that, the said order of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30185 WP No. 18058 of 2026 temporary injunction is not in force. Such being the case, consideration of this I.A. for the same relief of temporary injunction does not arise and is not maintainable. Accordingly, dismissed the petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that both the Courts below failed to consider the fact that there are two different suits, and when the petitioners have filed an application seeking injunction, the Court ought to have considered the same on its merits and without dismissing it on the ground that in the earlier suit, an injunction was granted. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, perused the material on record. 7. The petitioners have filed two suits in respect to the passage; one is for declaration and the other one is for the bare injunction. In the bare injunction suit, there is an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the petitioners' passage, and in the later suit, the very same relief is sought. Both the Courts have rightly considered and held that the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30185 WP No. 18058 of 2026 petitioners are not entitled for an injunction when already there is an injunction in force in the other suit. In the considered opinion of the Court, the order passed by both the Courts are well considered orders, and no interference is called for. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. Any of the observations made in these orders will not come in the way of the petitioners in the pending Injunction Suit. iii. Pending I.As. if any, in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE rv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22